Official Luthiers Forum!

Sounds to me like the "middle ground" here is halfway between beveled only and "semi-hemi". (Is that a baby Chrysler, by the way?)
Is a "semi-hemi" not just a fret rounded on all three sides but carried to the extreme?
(Had to get my .02 in you know)

It's been my feeling, since about 1996, that the vast majority of players has never been given any kind of opportunity to experience anything that is even a slight departure from Martin/Taylor specs in regards to bridge spacing and overall 12th fret width.

I remember back when absolutely no one discussed nut-width. Now nut width is of course a regular topic, and one of the first things a marginally experienced player might ask about for a given guitar. Bridge spacing is a spec that is still less noticed...but there is more awareness of this as a "spec" than it used to be. Nut spacing and overall 12th fret width are even more rarely discussed...but eventually the level of sophistication may rise enough that this is something that is considered by the advancing player.

It would be nice if the market could rise above the specs and traditions of "what was," and look forward to what-might-be...especially if the player can benefit....and even if the player doesn't know (yet) about what might be a change that would help their playing!

Heck, even scale-length is only a "sometimes" topic when folks should really be zooming in on that issue...like, pretty much any time anyone starts a conversation about "parlor guitars." What the heck is the definition of a parlor-guitar, anyway! Okay, I'll leave that for another thread.

I would agree that a beginner (and perhaps up through intermediate) player will not benefit (or even notice) a wider taper going up the fingerboard...but once you're playing up there, the experiences available are limiting, to say the least. Without first-hand (literally, hands-on!) experience it's hard to communicate just how profound an experience a much-wider 12th fret spec can be (for any given nut and bridge spacing).

If you build it, they will come.

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

Great points indeed, Larry. Thanks for the comments...and feel free to stick around and make yourself comfortable!

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

Larry; I'd like to second JJ's comments. Thank you for your input. You have clarified (and confirmed) several issues that I have been thinking about for some time now.
What are your feelings about adhering to a "standard" string spacing at the saddle?

Well, ahem, thanks again for this "welcome" gentlemen!

I have a few irons in the fire, so I may not appear regularly...but you can see that I joined some time ago, and I do lurk from time to time...just had to come out of the woodwork (can I say that? ) on this one!

My motto is that "one plays the string spacings"...but also that the underlying palette (the fingerboard!) does also play a significant role...and a role that is perhaps a bit too bound by traditional thought. Go wide.



I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by this...I know folks that prefer the Larrivée PV-09 spec of 2-3/16", and then going all the way out to 2-3/8"...it's all personal preference...and indeed, "one plays the string spacings"...so perhaps I'm stating-the-obvious when I say that any given builder needs to decide if they want their guitars to adhere to one spec, or offer different specs in the bridge-spacing area! A well-seasoned player may have a preference, of course.

My take on things is that "most" builders (large & small) use the bridge spacing as the overall 14th fret width (Taylor's formula, as far as I can see) for any given set of specs (bridge spacing, nut-width/nut-spacing), and some (not the majority, but more in the handcrafted world) would use the bridge spacing as the overall 12th fret width spec, making the fingerboard just that much wider up the neck. I like to have the 12th fret width as even *wider* than the bridge spacing, giving unprecedented space between the E strings and the edges of the fingerboard as you go up the neck. This allows for full-attack on things like side-to-side vibrato, and "reckless-abandon hammer-ons", etc. on the E strings.

Interestingly, Martin uses three different bridge spacings with 3 models that get the exact same neck...at least they did for a while. They have OM guitars that used 2-1/4", 2-5/16", and 2-3/8" bridge spacings. Each guitar had the same exact overall 12th fret width, that of 2-1/4"...so while with the one model they matched the 12th fret width to the bridge (better build-ergonomics, IMO), the other two models used fingerboards that were relationally-narrower, given the wider taper of the strings (due to the wider bridge spacing...doh!)...the E strings ended up closer to the edges of the fingerboard as you went up the neck on the latter two models.

I doubt anyone at Martin thought or cared about this.

So for me, the question is not so much about a "standard" for bridge spacing, as it is about relational-standards given any set of specs for the nut (overall *and* spacing) and bridge spacing...

It's fair to look at this from the perspective of "inset," but I have come to my specs by examining what my playing preferences are for the nut and bridge spacings, and then adding-in the fingerboard dimensions on top of this (or "underneath" this, as the case may be!). It gives a builder just a few numbers to "hit" to give me a perfect fit. I've done all the heavy lifting in-advance...and perhaps a couple/three builders will consider my earlier specs and give life to something similar in their own shop.

I hope this was sort of the discussion you were looking for on this, Daniel...

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

This has been a great thread, thank you so much to everyone who has contributed.

Great to have your playing perspective on this Larry. You've given me lots to chew on

_________________
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

I'm with you on this, Larry, but I think it's misleading to define the space between the extreme strings and the edge of the fingerboard as the ratio of bridge string spacing and the FB width at the 12th (or 14th fret). The space you seek is defined, not by two measurements such as the 12th fret width and bridge spacing, but rather by FOUR measurements, which together define the spatial relationship of the strings over the fingerboard.

To illustrate, use the calculator at my website http://www.mullinguitars.com/calculating-guitar-fret-spacing-fingerboard-dimensions-and-string-setback.html, where you can define the nut width, and string spacings you want at both nut and saddle, then adjust the width at the 12th fret to give you the extra space you want further up the fingerboard. Note that if you change the string spacing at the nut, the "ideal" ratio of 12th-fret width to bridge spacing will NOT be the same.

I made up this spreadsheet after running into trouble myself with "rules-of-thumb" regarding the relationship between 12th-fret width and bridge spacing -- they DON'T work, and my spreadsheet illustrates why. Now when I work with a customer designing an instrument, we work together to define what those 4 meansurements should be, and that's exactly what I build. (Dressing of frets also affects the space and comfort, but not nearly as much as the relationship between strings and fingerboard)

My original post (page 3 of this thread) on this subject offered *my* four numbers:

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"


This gives the geometry/relationships that *I* want, and it's all the builder needs. I believe that with one small exception, your spread-sheet is based on these 4 numbers...

If I am seeing things correctly, however, your spread-sheet forces my #2 above to be a set number of units less than the full width of the nut (5 mm less than the chosen nut width, I believe)...this pre-determines the set-back at the nut. I don't agree with this approach at all, even though it's less crucial right at the first fret or so. I use a very narrow E-to-E spacing at the nut, compared to it's overall width, and your spread-sheet does not give me the room I want on each side of the E strings. As I have said, I "play the string spacing."

Your chart is a useful spread-sheet to show a potential player the actual numbers, thank you...but I would remove the formula from the "string spacing @ nut" cell, since different nut string spacings can be applied to the same overall nut width, depending on player-preference. Plug in all 4 of my specs into your spreadsheet, and you'll get some unusual looking numbers for the set-back...

For me, the physicality of this is what really strikes home...in actually holding and playing a guitar, where, given the first 3 spec-preferences, the 4th is given as even wider than the norm...hence my simplistic (but direct) comment about the bridge spacing and 12th fret width.

I'm just saying that *no one* builds guitars where the 12th fret width is actually wider than the bridge spacing. No one. At least, aside from guitars that *I* have commissioned, I've absolutely *never* seen it done. That's the practical point I am trying to make.

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

Really, I *am* still with you on this and we're on the same page. You're being misled by the formulas in the blue cells of the spreadsheet which only illustrate that you can insert either a number or a formula -- very handy for doing metric conversions or, in the case of cell F9, you already know what set back you want at the nut. So yes, you can plug your numbers as direct replacements for my examples in the blue cells, and you'll get very reasonable looking numbers -- I've done so. My observation is that, while you like more setback than most factory guitars in ALL positions, having 1.5 mm more setback at the 12th fret is quite typical of many.

You are obviously well aware of the relationship among these 4 measurements, but I find other makers and most clients only refer to a couple and forget that they ALL interact to define string setback along the length of the neck. You've pointed out that not many guitars are built where the 12th-fret width is greater than the bridge spacing -- but you should also point out that not many have string spacing at the nut that is 8 mm narrower than the nut width! But, that's how you like 'em -- no argument from me.

(Just as a point of interest, I have a 1992 Martin D35 here that has a neck that is a full 1 mm WIDER at the 12th fret (55 mm) than the string spacing at the bridge (54 mm), and has about 1.5 mm more setback at the 12th than at the nut. Personally, I've always hated it 'cause the neck is too skinny everywhere!)

I get it, and yes, we're agreeing on all of this...and thanks for the clarification on the use of your excel file...I did just force in my own numbers, but wasn't sure that this was the intended use, since there is a formula in the cell. We haven't spoken yet about scale-length, but that's another thread...

My "narrow" 1.5" nut string spacing (narrow for a 1-13/16" nut, that is!) is simply a middle-of-the-road string-spacing number for a 1-3/4" nut...and that's how I came to use this number...playing on 1-3/4" nut guitars, with anywhere from 1-15/32" to 1-17/32" string spacing. Hence my repeating the comment "playing the string spacings." Nonetheless, I *do* like the feel of the wider 'board under the 1-1/2" spacing...and in wanting a more consistent "look" for the taper, when looking at the E strings in relation to the edges of the fingerboard, I recognized that making the 'board wider at the nut would give more "balance" to the overall look...to my eye, anyway. While I could easily get by with changing the nut to 1-3/4" (leaving the spacing untouched), the 1-13/16" has become my de facto standard.

I very much appreciate your going over these 4-numbers with your clients...it's a level of detail I don't normally see (unprompted), and yet it's one that I require!

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

Larry...when other accomplished players have played your wider at the 12th fret than saddle string spacing, what were their comments. Have any gone with such spacing on subsequent guitars. Just wondering if there's an immediate perceived benefit or does it grow on the player.

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

A fair question complicated by scale-length issues, as well as only a couple having truly been built to proper spec, including my current scale length requirements.

I had a two custom guitars built about two-three years ago, to my current 24" scale spec, and with the other numbers as stated. No one was around much to try them (of my touring friends), and the guitars didn't work particularly well for me (other body shape/size issues), and they didn't stay around too long. Prior to that it was about 5 years ago that I went through a full 1/2 dozen custom-shop Martin 00 sized guitars (24.9" scale)...the last 2-3 of these guitars were simply terrific, spec-wise (3-4 did not meet my specs...long story)...but it was right when I ended up changing over to the 24" scale, and so they also didn't hang around long. I can tell you that the people that have ended up with these guitars have been rather happy.

I have been partially struggling with the Larrivée PV-09 guitars for over 4 years now, enjoying the scale length, diminutive body size, and cutaway access...but not enjoying bridge, nut and 12th fret width dimensions. None of my friends ever seem to reach for these guitars...

I have two new guitars coming with the proper specs (including the 24" scale), both OM sized guitars...I should have the first one within about 2 weeks, and I'll be able to report on it then. I have no idea if my "standard scale length" friends will be interested in trying these guitars. I will have at least one of these guitars at both Healdsburg and Montreal, if anyone is there and interested in see the hands-on results...

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

A semi hemi sounds like almost part of a kind of Dodge truck.
Seriously... I always had problems with my high E string getting caught under the lip of a trimmed fret edge on some guitars, which makes me instinctively not like that fret tang nipper. Not sure about spacing on edges but 4/32 sounds a lot like 1/8. Ha Ha.

_________________
"Preoccupation with an effect gives it power and enhances the error"
from "Your Owner's Manual" by Burt Hotchkiss.

That is exactly what I do when I finish the frets square/rounded. It really is not that time-consuming with a thin scraper.

_________________
John

Larry,

I think it is great when players know what they want. When they also know why they want it, it is "icing on the cake". Certainly, I believe in giving a player what they want. Your desires, being different, lead me to ask you questions in hopes that I might learn something. Its OK if you can't answer them, but here goes:

1. I think most steel string players play off the right leg in the "casual position". You play off the right leg with the guitar head up in the "classical position". Do you see this affecting your hand positions and your desire for a wider fretboard, at the nut (1 13/16") and/or up the neck? (Of course, classical players typically have a much wider fretboard even beyond the need for wider nylon strings.)

2. I think most steel string players play with the left thumb wrapped around the neck, not always, but some significant part of the time. off the right leg in the "casual position". You play with the thumb behind the neck, "classical style", Do you see this affecting your hand positions and your desire for a wider fretboard, at the nut (1 13/16") and/or up the neck?

3. Has playing shorter scale guitars affected you fretboard width requirements?

4. You desire significantly more than the "traditional" 1/8" string center to fretboard edge at the nut. Why do you desire this large space? What is the playing advantage? Is this affected by your somewhat classical technique?

5. I think the purpose of "edge space" is to provide room for the fretting finger and avoid rolling the string of the fretboard, with rolling the space to avoid rolling the string off being the larger of the two needs. What do you see as the purpose of edge space?

You said above, "It would be nice if the market could rise above the specs and traditions of "what was," and look forward to what-might-be...especially if the player can benefit.... and even if the player doesn't know (yet) about what might be a change that would help their playing!" Yes, I agree. And I think the vast majority don't know this. If one examines the string spacing I like best, neither Martin nor Taylor or others are doing this. Namely, moving both E strings out (Tim McKnight does and reports using 3/32" edge spacings) and putting more space between the bass strings than the treble strings. But these two things become less significant as the nut gets wider (like you spec) and when a player uses the classical technique (like you) of keeping his thumb behind the neck and keeping his fretting fingers more straight on (perpendicular) to the fretboard. However, the vast majority of steel string players do not do these 2 things. This leads them to wanting smaller nut withs and makes judicious use of this real estate more critical IMHO.

Thanks much for your input. As I said earlier, I really enjoy and admire your playing. I have owned your music for the last 9 years. I have no hidden agenda with the questions nor any disrespect.

Ed

Thanks for your interest (and kind comments), Ed.

#1) No, I don't see my playing position as a reason to consider the wide-tapered fingerboard. I would argue that ergonomically the classical-position *does* give one more comfort and perhaps better positioning for more extreme technical challenges...but *plenty* of players do pretty well breaking the "rules" as I see them!

#2) It's true that classical-position offers less "opportunity" (if that is the correct word) for wrapping one's thumb around the bass side of the 'board. I am of the opinion that one should prepare for all contingencies, but then utilize what works "best"...best for them! I typically do not wrap my thumb, but have been known to do so on occasion. I wouldn't let this infrequently-used (for me) technique dictate other more important reasons to "go wide" with the 'board spec up the neck.

Last fact to consider (and take my comments with a grain of salt!): I have small hands, and thumb-wrapping has never been much of a priority for me.

#3) Absolutely not. I was using a version of these numbers back in the mid-late 1990s when I was still playing on 25.4" scale length guitars.

#4) I addressed this obliquely in an earlier post. The reality is that what I *need* is the 1-1/2" E-to-E spacing at the nut. That's what I play; that is, the string spacing is what is played...and as we know, the e-strings aren't likely to be pulled over the edge of a fret down at the first couple/three frets (unless a really unusual set-up is involved). So I can get-by with anywhere from 1-3/4" to 1-13/16" as the overall width. I prefer the 13/16" because it gives a more consistent feel *and* look to the inset of the E strings when considering the 'board and E-strings relationship as a whole.

#5) The edge-space (IMO) is to keep the string above the fret (hence my initial participation in this topic!) regardless of technique applied...and that includes very aggressive hammer-ons and significant side-to-side vibrato techniques. I find that I need to be "careful" when playing my Larrivée Parlors, but when I have a custom guitar with the set-up I have described my playing can have a bit more reckless abandon to it.

Hopefully this answers your questions!

I'm glad that this came up here (and on the AGF, although I do apologize to the OP for the not insignificant thread-drift...at least it's a related topic...

If you really want to have your mind blown, please check out the works of classical guitarist Paul Galbraith. I am inches away from converting to this position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNvGMK3g8Kw

(yes, the "box" that the guitar-stand-thingie rests on is an acoustic chamber)

Pretty cool, eh?

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com