GURIAN Neck Replacement or Reset: 3 Expert Luthiers

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Murray,

As you know, we've had this discussion before. I don't do it that way. It isn't the way I was taught and I like the flexibility that I have with not doing it that way.

In addition to the string spacing at the nut and the saddle, there are four dimensions that go into determining the profile of the fingerboard. These are as follows:

A: the distance at the nut from the low E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

B: the distance at the nut from the high E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

c: the distance at the 12th fret from the low E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

D: the distance at the 12th fret from the high E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

These determine the profile of the fingerboard, at least for me.

For the fingerpicking guitars that I make, B>A, D>A and A usually is the same as C. At what fret the saddle spacing is the same as the fingerboard width is entirely irrelevant, in the scheme I use.

Certainly, using a formula, such as the width of the 12th fret is equal to the string spacing at the saddle, is often used and works, but the method I use provides - me, anyway - greater ability to tailor the characteristics of the instrument's playability to the specific needs of the player.

Charles, I consider the {string spacing >> fretboard width} to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It gives a prospective client an instant picture of what the taper is and how much real estate he has to manouevre in, rather than explaining that the bass E is parallel to the fretboard edge and that the edge of the e string is .xxx" from the fretboard edge at the 12th fret.

The ratio is there on every guitar, it is there on your guitars, there is no harm done by measuring and revealing what that ratio is, even if it is not a parameter which you take into account when actually constructing the instrument.

You have me intrigued now . . . at which fret on your guitars is the fretboard width equal to the string spacing ? Go on ... get that caliper out ...

[Trevor Gore]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

I am sure that your design works perfectly , Trevor, but most builders won't have access to a mortising machine to cut the square hole, which I assume is how you do it (you don't drill a hole and then chisel it square surely?)

I use a chisel mortise attachment. AU$78, when I bought mine years ago, now AU$92 with 5 piece chisel set. Works fine for me, though these attachments have a bad reputation from those who do mortising for a living and who should have a dedicated machine anyway.



I tried drilling a hole and chiseling it square when I was writing the book, just to see if it could be done. It's actually not that hard (use a bevel edge chisel) and accurate enough, but I would still recommended the mortising attachment. It takes me less than 5 minutes to put the attachment on, bore the mortise and take it off, but I've done it a few time before! I don't use any of that stuff on the drill press table for mortising, but it has all been re-purposed for other jigs/fixtures.

Originally Posted by murrmac123

The tendency for barrel nuts to split the wood of the tenon is admittedly a problem, but can be totally overcome by gluing in two cross- grain cleats, one on either side of the bolt hole. Better still, cleats made of 1.5mm thick aeroply. These cleats should be glued into sawn kerfs, not just stuck onto the cheeks of the tenon.

Yep, I had a look at that idea, too. More work and the cost of aeroply here is outrageous! So it was easy to see why Gerard had stuck with the square hole for so long (~30 years).

[Jim.S]

In reply to your post number 39 Tom (no idea how Murray got your name so if I am wrong you will have to live with "Tom")

Thanks all I need is a copy of that post to show the Northern Territory Tourist Board and they will give me my ten dollars.

I have no interest in building "Custom" guitars, so I only sell what I build. If someone likes my guitars I would build a sort of custom though in that they could choose wood and decoration, nut width/string spacing maybe but it would be essentially the same guitar as the ones I build on spec.

Trevor was being polite when he said I complain about the cold down south. The more accurate description would be that I shiver and whinge about the cold in much the same way as Southerners when they come up here and repetitively point out that it is "so hot".

On Croc Dundee, I met the guy that wrote the story that the movie took a bit of the story from. I spent a few nights on his 100,000 acre property getting a bit of wood from his rainforest. He was the guy who was out "fishing" when his boat was attacked by a large croc. He is now deceased, shot by the police.

Jim

[BothHands]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

For the fingerpicking guitars that I make, B>A, D>A and A usually is the same as C. At what fret the saddle spacing is the same as the fingerboard width is entirely irrelevant, in the scheme I use.

Certainly, using a formula, such as the width of the 12th fret is equal to the string spacing at the saddle, is often used and works, but the method I use provides - me, anyway - greater ability to tailor the characteristics of the instrument's playability to the specific needs of the player.

Charles ==
Would you please define A, B, C and D as appear in paragraph 1 above? I'm out of my depth and need a 'jargon transfusion'.


I just applied a dial caliper to a guitar for which the neck does feel as though it widens out as I play nearer the body. I always assumed sting set-in from the fretboard edges to be constant from nut to the last fret ("penultimate fret", hat tip Trevor )

Focusing on the unwound hi-e string, I adjust the caliper so its left blade is between the e and b strings, touching the inside edge of the e string. The opposite blade is touching the edge of the fretboard.

At the nut, the caliper reads approximately .112"
At Fret 12, the caliper reads approximately .190"
So the neck width increases more than the spacing of the strings does.

Murray clued me in to this possibility via email a while back, but I failed to sit down and prove it to myself until now (duh...and thanks, Murray).

Fretboard width at Fret 12 is approximately 2.307"
String spacing at the saddle (caliper blades contacting the outside edge of both e strings): 2.364"
This guitar is 'officially' 2-5/16" string spacing, 2.313" measured string center-to-center.

So the fretboard width at Fret 12 is more narrow than the string spacing at the saddle. And moving from nut to saddle, the width of the fretboard expands at an increased rate compared to the string spacing.

Do these observations support anyone's theory here?

[BothHands]

Originally Posted by Jim.S

In reply to your post number 39 Tom (no idea how Murray got your name so if I am wrong you will have to live with "Tom").

'Tom' will do (I just like to keep a low profile online...) Murray knows because I purchased several of his TechnoFret luthiery innovations recently - a good experience in all respects.

Originally Posted by Jim.S

Thanks all I need is a copy of that post to show the Northern Territory Tourist Board and they will give me my ten dollars.

HA! Always glad to lend a hand.

Originally Posted by Jim.S

I have no interest in building "Custom" guitars, so I only sell what I build. If someone likes my guitars I would build a sort of custom though in that they could choose wood and decoration, nut width/string spacing maybe but it would be essentially the same guitar as the ones I build on spec.

Yes, that's an important distinction. Woods, level of bling (low suits me), nut width and string spacing at the saddle are pretty much my focus in terms of "customization" so I think we're on the same page. Beyond that, I'm getting along well with a new-to-me softened 'V' neck contour, so I might ask for that, and I like a smallish, simplified headstock. If you can swing that, we're off and running. Can you add a link to your website here?

Originally Posted by Jim.S

On Croc Dundee, I met the guy that wrote the story that the movie took a bit of the story from. I spent a few nights on his 100,000 acre property getting a bit of wood from his rainforest. He was the guy who was out "fishing" when his boat was attacked by a large croc. He is now deceased, shot by the police.

Man! Don'tcha just love happy endings? (not)

[Jim.S]

I don't have a web site, at the moment I am really only interested in selling to people who can come and play my instruments first. I have no intention of making a living solely from making guitars as there are too many other things I enjoy making from wood, so my main focus is to just build really nice guitars with no pressure to sell them. I have one build thread HERE on the AGF and there is a soundclip for another one HERE again in the build section. I may consider selling ones like "Rose Cliche" online but that will be second hand and reduced price.

Jim

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

Charles, I consider the {string spacing >> fretboard width} to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It gives a prospective client an instant picture of what the taper is and how much real estate he has to manouevre in, rather than explaining that the bass E is parallel to the fretboard edge and that the edge of the e string is .xxx" from the fretboard edge at the 12th fret.

I understand. In my opinion, it just isn't a very good description.

You have me intrigued now . . . at which fret on your guitars is the fretboard width equal to the string spacing ? Go on ... get that caliper out ...

Murray, I wouldn't do this for just anyone, ya know, but here are a few measurements...

24-3/4" scale, 2-5/16 saddle string spacing, 1-7/8 nut. The fingerboard is 2-5/16" wide 370 mm from the nut end of the fingerboard. 16th fret is at 379.17 mm.

25-11/32" scale, 2-1/4" saddle string spacing, 1-7/8" nut. The fingerboard is 2-14" wide 400 mm from the nut end of the fingerboard. 17th fret is at 402.59 mm

635 mm scale, 52 mm saddle string spacing, 43 mm nut. The fingerboard is 52 mm wide 371 mm from the nut end of the fingerboard. 15th fret is at 368.02 mm.

650 mm scale, 58 mm saddle string spacing, 54 mm nut. The fingerboard is 58 mm wide 143 mm from the nut end of the fingerboard. 4th fret is at 134.10.

If the point at which the fingerboard width equals the string spacing at the saddle coincides with any fret, it is entirely coincidental for the way I design and make instruments. In none of the measurements given above does the width in question coincide with any fret.

Certainly, it is possible to design instruments so that the fingerboard width at a particular fret equals the string spacing at the saddle. Lot of guitars are designed this way. Mine aren't. From my perspective, I don't see the need to impose that as a constraint.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by BothHands

Charles ==
Would you please define A, B, C and D as appear in paragraph 1 above? I'm out of my depth and need a 'jargon transfusion'.

I did, in the post that you quoted.

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

In addition to the string spacing at the nut and the saddle, there are four dimensions that go into determining the profile of the fingerboard. These are as follows:

A: the distance at the nut from the low E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

B: the distance at the nut from the high E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

c: the distance at the 12th fret from the low E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

D: the distance at the 12th fret from the high E string to the edge of the fingerboard.

These determine the profile of the fingerboard, at least for me.

So the neck width increases more than the spacing of the strings does...
So the fretboard width at Fret 12 is more narrow than the string spacing at the saddle. And moving from nut to saddle, the width of the fretboard expands at an increased rate compared to the string spacing.

Do these observations support anyone's theory here?

It isn't as complicated as you are making it.

Simply put, strings are stiffer near their end supports - the nut and saddle. The further one gets from the end supports, the less stiff the string becomes. The furthest point from both end points is the middle. At mid-span, I want more distance between the edge of the fingerboard and the outside strings.

This provides additional room for performing slurs ("pull-off's"). Usually, people play so that they pull downward, toward the edge of the fingerboard, on the high E string and away from the edge of the fingerboard on the low E. Thus, not as much additional room is required for the low E as for the high E. And, I want less space to the edge of the fingerboard near the nut, where the strings are very rarely ever pulled off the edge of the fingerboard.

What that does to the taper of the fingerboard or how fast the string spacing narrows relative to the fingerboard width aren't particularly relevant, as I go about it.

What I'm describing is not unique to me: many "hand-builders" do similar things, tailoring spacings to suit a particular player's preferences. It is one of the subtleties that one finds in many "hand-made" luthier-built guitars, rather than buying an "off-the-rack" factory instrument. As McDonald's used to advertise, you can "Have it your way".

[BothHands]

I'm sorry, Charles, but you are WRONG.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

As McDonald's used to advertise, you can "Have it your way".

It was NOT McDonald's. It was BURGER KING!

Oh, the Power! What a rush!


But seriously, here's an illustration of what's happening with my recently-acquired dreadnaught's neck. The fretboard widens a lot more than the strings footprint does as both approach the saddle. I assume that's to accommodate the wider string vibration arc at the center of the string's length, as stated in this thread.

I also note that my Gurian neck does not exhibit this. The E and e strings are set in the same distance (approximately) from the fretboard edge along the neck's entire length. And FWIW, I do tend to push the Lo-E string up and over the edge frequently when playing up the Gurian neck. So my layman's POV is that the wider fretboard at mid-string serves TWO purposes:

1. Accommodate the wider arc of the string's vibration, and
2. Accommodate the string's relative looseness at/near its center.

PS. Charles, you certainly did define A, B, C and D at the outset - and very precisely.
I can't imagine how I didn't understand that initially...(duh)

[BothHands]

Originally Posted by Jim.S

II have one build thread HERE on the AGF and there is a soundclip for another one HERE again in the build section. I may consider selling ones like "Rose Cliche" online but that will be second hand and reduced price.

WOW. That's one very informative and very interesting thread, Jim. Beautiful work and you live in a beautiful place. Well done, and count your blessings.

Makes me want to drive over to the Outback Steak House (no rules, just right), eat a Bloomin' Onion and down a coupla Foster's Lagers. I'm serious. Many of us here envy you Ozzies (except for your gun laws). Like you, I'm not a fan of cutaway bodies, so do all your guitars incorporate the "no heal" neck joint as appears on your Rose Cliche?

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by BothHands

I'm sorry, Charles, but you are WRONG.

Certainly not the first time.

It was NOT McDonald's. It was BURGER KING!

Of course is was. What was I thinking.

The fretboard widens a lot more than the strings footprint does as both approach the saddle. I assume that's to accommodate the wider string vibration arc at the center of the string's length, as stated in this thread.

Not so much.

And FWIW, I do tend to push the Lo-E string up and over the edge frequently when playing up the Gurian neck.

Keep that in mind when you specify a new neck or purchase a new guitar. Also look to shaping of the fret ends.

So my layman's POV is that the wider fretboard at mid-string serves TWO purposes:
[INDENT]1. Accommodate the wider arc of the string's vibration, and

The maximum amplitude of the string occurs at the midpoint of its vibrating length. The vibrating length changes as you fret the string. Thus, added neck width is not needed where fretted since the amplitude where fretted is zero.

[Jim.S]

Yep Tom it will be a rare day if I ever put a heel on a neck again, I see no need even though I do like the look of a well shaped heel. Many people don't like the look but then many people like guitars that I don't appreciate the sound of. I do like that little bit of extra reach without having to cutaway the upper bout so at least I get the look of a full shaped guitar from the front. I have had guys play them and not even notice the lack of heel till it is pointed out to them. I will say it again, I like to build the way I want without putting sale pressure on myself.

Jim

[John Arnold]

1. Accommodate the wider arc of the string's vibration, and

Explain why the vibration of the string makes a difference.

2. Accommodate the string's relative looseness at/near its center.

That is the only reason that makes sense to me. the string is easiest to push off the edge near the midpoint.
In my experience, guitars that have equal spacing to the edge have one of two characteristics:
1) They require more attention to keep from pushing the string off the edge. This is especially true if the fingerboard has a severe radius.
OR....
2) The strings are unnecessarily too closely-spaced at the nut.

[BothHands]

Originally Posted by Jim.S

Yep Tom it will be a rare day if I ever put a heel on a neck again,

Good, because we've all had enough of that from our respective governments...

Originally Posted by Jim.S

I see no need even though I do like the look of a well shaped heel.

Oh, a leg man...

Originally Posted by Jim.S

Many people don't like the look but then many people like guitars that I don't appreciate the sound of. I do like that little bit of extra reach without having to cutaway the upper bout so at least I get the look of a full shaped guitar from the front.

I don't mind the looks of a cutaway, though do find it a bit "trendy". I don't like how the loss of volume (internal space) impacts the sound. I have two identical dreadnaughts, but for the cutaway. The cutaway version sounds less full, tonally. I guess the preamp unit routed into the side of the upper bout could also be a factor, but I think the cutaway and its body-size reduction causes this dread to sound more like an OM. Just my perception as a guitarist, not a luthier.

Originally Posted by Jim.S

I will say it again, I like to build the way I want without putting sale pressure on myself.

Amen, brother. Without FREEDOM, creative endeavor turns into just a job, a grind, work. "No Rules. Just Right." as the slogan goes. I think it's "an Australian Thing".

If I get to conduct my Australian Guitar Hunt, I'll want to see a preview of everything you have on hand before I embark.

[BothHands]

In response to John and Charles, regarding a wider upper fretboard and how it does (or does not) accommodate the arc of the string's vibration:

Later in the day (yesterday) this issue was still rattling around in the back of my mind, and I thought I probably should render a third version of my illustration. The illustration below is what occurred to me, and I wanted to ask your opinions (but ran out of hours-in-the-day).

It depicts with I think happens when fretting a string. The string's vibrational arc becomes shortened to match whatever the new string length is (based on where you fret it). Further, it occurred to me that playing an open string involves a full-length vibrational arc with its center at the wide portion of the fretboard, BUT...the open string doesn't contact the fretboard/frets, so there's no need for the fretboard to be wide to accommodate that string's vibrational arc.

So it seems as though the primary reason for a wider fretboard nearer the body is to accommodate the slackness of the strings at their midpoint,
and thereby reduce the likelihood of pushing either E string over the edge of the fretboard.

I think that's in line with what you both are saying...(EDIT: and in re-reading the last dozen or so posts to this thread, it's pretty clear you both already said that...duh)

Thanks for this discussion.