Rounded (Semi-Hemispherical) or Beveled fret ends? String offset from the nut edge

[murrmac123]

Rod, there are many things that surprise me about the OLF, but I found the most surprising to be that on that particular thread, none of the builders who responded took the time to specify what crown width/height they were talking about when disparaging semi-hemis.

It would appear to me that the best results for semi-hemis would be achieved by having a crown width as wide as poss. and a minimum crown height of .047". I would imagine (and possibly I would imagine wrongly) that using semi-hemis on a smaller section fret might result in what some posters called a "nubby" or "knobby" feel.

On that assumption, I have ordered up a length of Evo-Gold 47104 (.047" crown height .104" crown width, to do a refret on one of my guitars. I shall do the fret ends semi-hemi style, crown the frets the proper, old fashioned way, with a three-square file, and pass it around a few of the local experienced players in Edinburgh for their opinion.

I will of course know myself whether the experiment is successful, but second opinions are always good ...

And Larry, if you are reading this, you need to get your required fret size into your specs ...

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

<<snip>>

And Larry, if you are reading this, you need to get your required fret size into your specs ...

I tend to like a narrow fret, and .040" in height is about right. New guitar is coming with EVO, and to this spec.

...and you're right, I should add this to my specs.

Edit: I also prefer a fairly broad fingerboard radius...20" if a cylindrical radius.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by R. True

...

So, those who have tried guitars with rounded fret ends as well as beveled fret ends, do you notice any difference in your strings falling off the edge of the fret more with one style or the other?

Coupled with this, how many really notice a difference with string spacing between the fretboard edge and the path of the e string (or E string if that's important to you also)?

Us custom makers seem to be all over the map with the likes of you the player (at least those who posted on the OLF thread). So give us the goods. Closer to the edge of the fretboard for the e string? 1/8" is good? 3/32" is fine? Or something in between? Or you really don't notice the difference much.

I have a slight preference for rounded fret ends, but the distance from the E and the e to the fretboard edge is more of a concern to me. I have one guitar with 1/8" for the e, and another guitar with 3/32"; definitely prefer the 1/8". I generally like around 1/8" for the E string as well, but I noticed that on the guitar with a compound radius fretboard (12" at the nut) that 1/8" on the low E string is marginal; a bit more might be better.

Both guitars have frets with 0.043" height and 0.080" width.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

Rod, there are many things that surprise me about the OLF, but I found the most surprising to be that on that particular thread, none of the builders who responded took the time to specify what crown width/height they were talking about when disparaging semi-hemis.

It would appear to me that the best results for semi-hemis would be achieved by having a crown width as wide as poss. and a minimum crown height of .047". I would imagine (and possibly I would imagine wrongly) that using semi-hemis on a smaller section fret might result in what some posters called a "nubby" or "knobby" feel.

If the crown width is not exactly twice its height, you cannot make its end into a quarter of a sphere.

Of course this is one more area where terms that once had a precise meaning are abused in order to give some treatment a more technical sounding name. Like so-called "parabolic" bracing. A range of shapes that are kinda sorta like a quarter of a sphere get called "semi-hemispherical."

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

Rod, there are many things that surprise me about the OLF, but I found the most surprising to be that on that particular thread, none of the builders who responded took the time to specify what crown width/height they were talking about when disparaging semi-hemis.

It would appear to me that the best results for semi-hemis would be achieved by having a crown width as wide as poss. and a minimum crown height of .047". I would imagine (and possibly I would imagine wrongly) that using semi-hemis on a smaller section fret might result in what some posters called a "nubby" or "knobby" feel.

I would think taller wider fretwire will be more nubby feeling but anyway for best results try a using a bound fretboard. Good luck.

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

If the crown width is not exactly twice its height, you cannot make its end into a quarter of a sphere.

Of course this is one more area where terms that once had a precise meaning are abused in order to give some treatment a more technical sounding name. Like so-called "parabolic" bracing. A range of shapes that are kinda sorta like a quarter of a sphere get called "semi-hemispherical."

Strictly speaking , you are of course correct, Howard, but does terminological exactitude really have to be carried to such extremes ?

Rod suggested on the OLF that the term "rounded frets" should be adopted but to me that seems far too vague.

I am as much of a stickler for precision in language as the next man, but I am perfectly happy to accept "semi-hemispherical" as the best practical description of what the proponents of such are trying to achieve, even though they may not attain (and indeed, in some cases, may not even be trying to attain) the Euclidean ideal.

[Howard Klepper]

Oh, alright.

[JohnM]

I've played a couple of guitars with this fret treatment. I didn't really notice a difference. So long as there is space to wiggle the 1st string then not a bunch more is needed. Normally when bending the 1st or 6th players push, or pull, the string towards the middle of the fretboard, not towards the edge.

I've built some guitars where the players requested no bevel just a knocking of the edges to feel/plays smooth.

I doubt you'll find many players who have played a guitar with this style of fret end treatment. If it were that much better we would all be switching to it. It's a bit more work, and looks nice too, but I don't see a huge benefit except maybe in very particular situations.

[Tim McKnight]

Timely thread Rod. I recently finished my first Semi-Hemi-Quarter-Rounded fret end treatment It was a royal pain in the back side. It normally takes me about an hour to an hour and a half to fret a "normal" FB. This S-H-Q-R fret treatment took me many many more hours. I was about ready to toss in the towel but I am glad I stuck it out. The end result is VERY classy looking IMO and I like the look with the frets inset a few thou from the edge of the FB too. Although it could be described as nubby if you drag your hand along the FB but it should not be a problem for players who arch their fingers instead of laying their hands flat on the neck.

FWIW I have always used 3/32" as my standard inset though I have done lots of custom requests too. I measure my inset from the edge of the string to the edge of the FB at the first fret and not at the nut. Different strokes for ...

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

I like the look with the frets inset a few thou from the edge of the FB too. Although it could be described as nubby if you drag your hand along the FB but it should not be a problem for players who arch their fingers instead of laying their hands flat on the neck.

Tim, if the end of the fretwires are inset from the edge of the fretboard then you lose some fretwire territory that way too. Of course that inset from the edge is why a bound fingerboard where the fretwire ends at the binding or part way through improves the feel also.
Regarding feeling the fret ends while playing, that does bug me and I arch my fingers plenty (classical guitar background). Part of that comes from the fact that I do a lot of moving around in barre chords where the index finger is flat. Experiment with how that feels to you.

[SteveS]

Originally Posted by JohnM

I've played a couple of guitars with this fret treatment. I didn't really notice a difference. .........

That's my suspicion. If done well, either method will be fine and the player shouldn't notice it.
That being said, the Semi-Hemi-Quarter-Rounded fret end treatment looks better to me.

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

It normally takes me about an hour to an hour and a half to fret a "normal" FB. This S-H-Q-R fret treatment took me many many more hours.

So, 21 frets, how many extra minutes per fret, Tim, on your reckoning, to do the semi-hemi thing ?

I am assuming you cut the fret to length first and fashion the ends in the vice prior to installation, rather than the cowboy " cut 'em oversize and run the file up the edge of the fretboard at 30 degrees" method.

I am doing my first semi hemi this week, I would be unpleasantly surprised if I had to spend any more than (max) 10 extra minutes per fret, say 2 1/2 hours extra in toto.

[Rod True]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

So, 21 frets, how many extra minutes per fret, Tim, on your reckoning, to do the semi-hemi thing ?

I am assuming you cut the fret to length first and fashion the ends in the vice prior to installation, rather than the cowboy " cut 'em oversize and run the file up the edge of the fretboard at 30 degrees" method.

I am doing my first semi hemi this week, I would be unpleasantly surprised if I had to spend any more than (max) 10 extra minutes per fret, say 2 1/2 hours extra in toto.

I'm not Tim of course, but I can let you know how it went for me.

You can see my proceedure here

I timed myself on the proceedure. I pre-cut my frets first (not included in the time).

So, to cut back the fret tang (stew-mac fret tang cutter) and mark the edge of the fretboard on the fret, clip the fret end close and then round the end, check it in the slot, round the other end, check it again and hammer the fret in, took me on average of 8 mins each fret, some more some less. So that's just over 2-1/2 hours for the full fret job which I thought was reasonable for the outcome.


Thank you all for your input on this. I've really found it helpful and I hope it's been helpful for others too.

[Matt Mustapick]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

Here are my deep-seated thoughts on this.

I prefer as vertical a fret-end as possible, and a semi-hemi treatment may indeed be the best 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 (again)...

Spot on. The margin between the outer strings and the edge of the fingerboard matters little down by the nut because the strings are laterally anchored there by the nut. But I believe most guitars would have benefited from having a wider margin higher up the fingerboard, particularly on the treble side.

With regard to fret ends, any treatment that provides comfort while preserving as much usable length of the fret as possible is great with me. If this can be done as well with the semi-hemi thing then that's super, but I wouldn't otherwise be inclined to prefer one over the other.

[Shabby Chic]

There was someone at the last GAL convention who was marketing perfectly rounded fret ends. They felt really odd to me when moving up and down the fingerboard.

My favorite feel is when I bevel, then kiss the edges off with a knife-shaped needle file ground flat on the bottom. Works great for me and only takes a few seconds per fret. Kind of a compromise between the two I guess. Here's what it looks like before polishing: