Intonation With Angled Frets

[Crusader]

I'm wondering how good the intonation is on guitars with angled frets like the "Vociferator"

[jaycee]

I'm sure Wez will chip in, but theres no difference from a standard fretted guitar. Each string has it's own scale length and as long as the placement of the saddles in relation to the nut is correct ten intonation should be the same

[Bmth Builder]

Yeah its no different to a normal guitar

[Kenny]

on a regular guitar there would be less intonation problems if the strings were perepndicular to the frets. however this is not the case since the strings are at a slight angle, the length of the string becomes slightly longer, hence why we need to intonate guitars

on a guitar with multiscale frets depending on the design the string will pass over multiple scale length (however the audible difference is not noticible) and intonation is done in the same way as a normal guitar.

to me i cant hear any difference.

[WezV]

no difference, the intonation is perfect if its set up correctly.

infact i spent a long time working out the bridge locations when i designed it so it didn't even need an intonation adjustment when i strung it up

[erikbojerik]

no difference, the intonation is perfect if its set up correctly.

infact i spent a long time working out the bridge locations when i designed it so it didn't even need an intonation adjustment when i strung it up

+1

If you have trouble with compensation and intonation on a regular guitar, you'll go insane with a multiscale.

[dpm99]

Can you bend strings on a multiscale? Just curious.

[Kenny]

It feels a little different; but in an enjoyable way

Kenny

[WezV]

yeah, it caught me out the first time. Its definately the biggest issue you have to get used to but that just takes a few minutes of listening to your bends to sort out - something i should have done anyway but i am a lazy player.

when you change scale length, string guage or tuning on a normal guitar you have to modify you bending technique. so its not really that different on these

[Crusader]

Thanks for your replies people

The reason I asked is -

I made a few guitars with slightly angled frets myself (about ten years ago) and I'm just getting around to checking the intonation now (talk about lazy lol) Actually I find its really hard work and wanted someone elses opinion. btw I've never seen anyone do angled frets before, do you know if many people do it?

The purpose behind my angled frets is a bit different to the "Vociferator" though. The guitars still tune the normal way but I've got the Gibson scale on the LH side and the usual logarythm method on the RH side (like Fenders and most other guitars) One or two guitars have the bridge square to the strings (like no compensation) so they have very angled frets while others have the usual compensation on the bridge so you can barely notice the angled frets

The reason I tried this is I found my Fender to have good intonation on the 1st string and my Gibson had good intonation on the 6th string. So my home made guitars are good on the 1st and 6th string but a bit wobbly on the others. Some of the problems I have ironed out with better set-up, for example a nice low action helps a lot but flat frets are nasty. So I need to improve my fretworking skills and with a few other things I might find the idea actually works. If I find time I will post up some pictures

Most of my problems are only about 2 cents, so this raises another question, what do most people reckon is acceptable? If a note is only a cent high or low would you worry about it?

[WezV]

be interested to see them - sounds kinda weird but i think i am struggling to see what you have done with the bridges

the first guitar i did like this uses 25-26" scales and is in standard tuning with a set of 10's or 11's usually... i feel the technique has just as much merit for improved tension (and therefore clarity) on standard 6 string guitars as it does for many stringed extended range instruments. I did it on the vociferator as i really dont like baritones with a fixed 28" scale, great for the low notes but the high strings can be really uncomfortable with too much tension. this technique solves those issues and the guitars generally feel more ergonomic for most styles of playing

[Crusader]

Sounds like we have similar ambitions but from a different perspective!

The original idea I had when building a guitar was to have it two frets longer than normal so it tunes down to D but I never heard of baritone guitars untill recently. I didn't really like the long necks and made a couple of 24.75" guitars and liked them much more.

There's so much I could say I don't know where to start. So I'll start from the beggining

One day at High School this guy showed me this magazine with pictures of "Slade". It featured the lead guitarist's ax called "The Super Yob" (Dave Hill) It made me realise that a guitar doesn't have to be the usual "Classical" guitar shape. So during English and Social Studies I drew designs of guitars and came up with something like a Flying V. It's kinda stuid really, I knew about Gibsons and Fenders but it took this "Super Yob" to jolt me into designing something "new" (By the way I failed Social Studies and just scraped in with English)

Tuning down to D was one of the concepts I had from the beggining along with having the top of the guiar thin and the bottom thick so the fretboard tilts towards you. And access to the high frets was a major element. The straight bridge is a concept I came up with when I decided to go "Gibson-one-side-and-the-Fender-the-other" I realised you could use whatever scale you wanted on the 1st string side and decided to design it with a straight bridge. I don't think its much different to what you have done but -

One of the things I have never really heard anyone say regarding the Gibson scale. I have owned a couple of Gibsons and tried for ages to figure out how they call them 24.75" Then I put the tape on the 6th string side and whadayaknow? Almost exactly 24 3/4 inches!

So what does this mean?

You know there has to be compensation, especially on the 6th string. So Whoever designed this put the compensation into the the fret spacing not the bridge. So it doesn't follow the 1.059463094 Logarythm method no matter what you do (sorry - No matter what I do)

BTW I'm on my third Wild Turkey and there's some spunky chick on the tv and theres a huge cockroach on the wall that I had to kill. So I hope I'm sounding coherent and haven't changed the subject... What was I talking about?

Oh yeah guitars

- with extended range

That reminds me of another idea I had once - Tune the guitar like a violin

I can't remember exactly but the one I did tunes almost down to a bass guitar and reaches the highs of a normal guiatar

You can't play chords (except for 2 -3 notes) and you have to change your playing technique altogether

Its okay on a violin which has a very short fretboard but on a guitar its a bit of a stretch

...Back to the "Almost Vagrant"

(I spend all my money on stupid hobbies and am always on the edge with paying the rent)

After doing the guitar with frets on an angle that you can barely notice it begs the question "why bother"? But I'm sure if you do it right theres no need to do special fretwork, like an SG I once owned. One day I put my glasses on and looked closely at the frets and I'm sure they had been worked-on. It seemed in some areas they were filed so the high point was toward the nut and in others they were towards the bridge. I should have kept that guitar to figure out its method - it had almost perfect intonation everywhere

Well I hope I haven't been boring and but I gotta go and I'll cu another day

cheers

[WezV]

the technique isnt really aiming for improved intonation or anything like that. its for improved tension, clarity and playability. The intonation is just as good as any standard guitar, although having a more appropriate tension on each string does help with setting it

One of the things I have never really heard anyone say regarding the Gibson scale. I have owned a couple of Gibsons and tried for ages to figure out how they call them 24.75" Then I put the tape on the 6th string side and whadayaknow? Almost exactly 24 3/4 inches! ...You know there has to be compensation, especially on the 6th string. So Whoever designed this put the compensation into the the fret spacing not the bridge. So it doesn't follow the 1.059463094 Logarythm method no matter what you do

Gibson's standard 24-3/4" scale is a compensated length based on a true scale of about 24-9/16" -

thats taken straight from stew-mac's website - gibson have used a few different versions of the 24 3/4" scale over the years... with the one quoted above they use the 24-9/16" to work out fret spacing and compensation is still added at the bridge which makes it about 24 3/4" of string length on the low E. They are not individually compensating every fret

there are a few systems aimed at improved intonation across the whole fretboard, most focus on adding compensation at the nut such as the earvana, funky nut, or any other compensated nut

http://www.earvana.com/

http://www.guitarsetup.co.uk/TheFunkyNut.php

http://www.mimf.com/nutcomp/

something like the buzz feiten system goes a bit further as it utilizes a compensated nut, bridge intonation ofsets and a special tuning system

http://www.buzzfeiten.com/howitworks/howitworks.htm

but if you want to go for the really crazy ideas on getting better intonation all over the neck check this one out

http://www.truetemperament.com/site/index....7&Itemid=36

i guess that would be the next step on from you SG with apparently individually intonated fretwork

[Crusader]

I've seen the Stewart McDonald website (I'm really keen on buying one of those Gibson fretboards) but I don't know how they can say its "based on a true scale of about 24-9/16" because no matter what length you use, you won't match the Gibson scale - using the mathematical formula of dividing by two to the power of one twelfth. It goes close but its not exact. I'm saying this based on many hours of carefull measuring and calculations I've made.

I might also mention I am soon to buy another Les Paul and I can check and compare all my results from the SG - So wait and see if I come up with something different

What I'd like is to hear Gibson explain the theory behind the scale but maybe its been around since Orville was still alive and the people who run the company now don't really know themselves! Anyway talking about scale length is going a bit off-topic and I might start another thread on it

Thanks for your replies and the websites. I'm familiar with compensated nuts and Buzz Feiten but that last one looks very interesting (it just isn't working for me right now. It starts to open up and I can see frets with wiggles, then there's a notice saying theres a problem) But I shall try again later

[WezV]

what stew-mac are saying is that although they sell them as 24 3/4" the 'true' scale length of their boards is 24 9/16" - that is the exact measurement they use to work out fret spacing and once compensated it ends up pretty damn close to 24 3/4"

i dont think they are using the word 'true' to claim that its the exact gibson scale length, but i am pretty sure it is one of the exact scale lengths gibson has used at some point. If you want to be sure then measure the distance to the 12th fret and double it, that will tell you the exact measurement that was used for the sums before compensation was added

there is a little more info on stew-macs site about the changes in gibsons scale length

http://www.stewmac.com/fretscales

so lets see, 24 9/16" = 24.5625"

stew-macs bridge location calculator says to put the treble post at 24.623" and the bass post 1/16-1/8" further back. So thats 24.625 - 24.6875". Stew-mac also say to allow + or - 0.03" allowing a maximum scale of 24.7175".... possibly close enough to be called 24 3/4" but not exact, just like you said. Maybe add a little more compensation to that if someone has a higher action or different strings and it could eaisly be bang on 24 3/4"

obviously going with 24 3/4 will result in one longer than that measurement once we compensate so lets try the other measurement

24 5/8" - 24.625"

they say treble post should be at 24.685", and again the bass post needs to be 1/16-1/8" back. thats gives you a range of 24.7475" - 24.81". Thats a guitar that could easily be bang on 24 3/4" with a nice action and average gauge strings, even before allowing for the + or - 0.03"

i guess that suggests the SG you had was either a 24 9/16" scale length with a higher action/bigger strings or it was constructed in a time gibson were using the 24 5/8" scale length

Thats all using Stew-macs fret calculator

http://www.stewmac.com/FretCalculator

i am not really an expert on this and think it would be hard to spot a tonal difference between a change in scale this small, i just tend to pick a scale that i think will work, slot the board according to a table or fretting calculator like the stew-mac one and add compensation on afterwards. the sums i just did are probably more than i would ever normally do

edit

i realised i was assuming the 24 3/4" was measured on the bass string, so i added the treble and bass spacing on the 24 5/8" scale length and divided by two to find the centre scale with compensation. 24.685+24.81= 49.495/2= 24.7475"...... or as near as damn it to 24 3/4 as you could measure.

so i think its fair to say you can pick a scale length thats matches gibsons 24 3/4" using the standard formula for fret spacing...

and

thank god for adjustable bridges!!

[Crusader]

thank god for adjustable bridges!!

So true!

Hey I have to say I've been stressed all day thinking my last post or two make me sound like a tosser. I really don't know how I come across sometimes. The main thing I'm trying to say is I believe dividing by 1.0594 is not the only way of working out fret spacings. I hope I don't sound like "I know all about it"

Its quite ironic that what Stewart McDonald said about the Gibson scale is what prompted me to remark about it in the first place. I'd say they aren't intending to fully explain the Gibson scale, its just to point out the Gibson 24-3/4 fretboard is different to what you might expect. If someone makes a guitar with a 24 3/4 scale worked out by 1.0594, the Gibson fretboard isn't going to fit - and when you're selling over the internet you don't want returns

While I was trying to figure out the Gibson scale I tried all sorts of methods. When you measure to the 12th fret and double it, the only fret that really matches is the 12th fret. I also tried various other ideas but no matter what, I could not apply a mathematical formula to it

Hey talking about selling things over the internet I'm really happy. I bought a body blank of Sth American mahogany exactly one week ago and it arrived from New Jersey today. It cost me heaps but it looks good and its a full 2 inches thick

The next 'Douglas' guitar is on the drawing board!

[WezV]

When you measure to the 12th fret and double it, the only fret that really matches is the 12th fret.

do that and it will tell you the actual uncompensated scale length, then use the forumla (or one of the calculators that does it for you) to work out each fret to fret/nut to fret distance and start measuring all of those if you are still not convinced...

you will find that the gibson guitar does follow the same formula for fret spacing as other guitars and they are not doing some sneaky thing that nobody knows about - its simply the case that they have varied how their guitars are made over the years and that includes slight changes in scale length. Stew-mac simply picked a common one that happened to be used on some of the most popular les pauls. they are not hiding it and dont really have anything else to explain about it as far as i can tell

anyway, i just loaded up wfret (another fret space calculator) to take a pic of what it says about doing the sums, because there is a little variation in how it can be done and it may be usefull if you are trying to spot slight mathmetical discrepencies in fret spacing formula

dont worry about how you sound, you havnt come across as a tosser or owt - but i think you may be looking for a deeper mystery where there really isnt one

[dugg]

"Most of my problems are only about 2 cents, so this raises another question, what do most people reckon is acceptable? If a note is only a cent high or low would you worry about it?"

There is 100 cents between each chromatic scale step. It's kind of like dB in that it's a way of putting a consistant number on something that increases exponentially. Hz is a measurement of pitch. At the lower end of music notes, Hz doesn't increase much from note to note, while at the top end, it increases by thousands of Hz each scale step. Cents are a constant 100 between steps. When we hear two pitches that are 'out of tune' to each other, we hear a phasing sound, or 'beats' that are exactly at the rate of difference of Hz. In other words, if I play one pitch at A=440 and another at A=442, we'll hear a beat rate of two beats a second. Down low, one hundredth of a semitone will be a fraction of one Hz, while up higher, it could be many hundreds of Hz. You could calculate from Cents if you know the Hz, but the real bottom line is Hz, which is what you hear. I say if it sounds ok, it is!

[Crusader]

When I am checking intonation I let 1 to 1.5 cents go but I get a bit upset if its 4, 5, or 6! LOL

I'm a person who's never far away from a calculator and one of the most recent concepts I explored was - how many Hz or cents is there in a millimetre?

Most of my errors are in the upper region of the 22nd to 25th fret and up there 1mm is worth about 4 cents

you will find that the gibson guitar does follow the same formula for fret spacing as other guitars...

You seem very confident about this, so its occured to me that you have done it. But nevertheless let me put forward my whole argument in one go (something which I have not yet done)

* Note: Before I begin I want to point out that everything I say is pure speculation yet based on the results of examining two guitars I used to own and untold calculations

Perhaps Gibson started off with a 24 ¾” scale back in 1920 (or whatever) then made it shorter over the years yet still called it 24 ¾ but it still doesn’t explain everything to me. But anyway I'll get started

The most common method of calculating fret distance these days (such as a fret calculator) is a perfect mathematical formula of dividing the scale by 2^1/12 or in decimals its 1.05946309436

Perfect mathematical formulas don’t take into account the actual physical elements which vary results to some degree. These involve string thickness, rigidity, tension and length. Then there’s playing action and player’s style and maybe other things I have missed

But what this means is the perfect mathematical formula naturally suits a light gauge string. I think the first reason we need compensation is because a thicker string will not vibrate all the way up to the break-off point (I think that’s what you call it) A very light gauge string like a .009 will vibrate all the way from the nut to the bridge and therefore very little or no compensation is needed on the first string

So a fret spacing that has been calculated on the 2^1/12 method will almost equal the scale on the first string length. And compensation angle is required up to the 6th string which ends up almost a quarter of an inch longer than the scale

I believe the Gibson 24 ¾ inch scale is worked out focusing on the sixth string and compensation is built into the fret spacing. I think they have played around with the compensation over the years to suit the most popular string gauges at the time, rather than the actual scale. And that’s why the distance from the nut to the 12th fret varies. The reason for my point of view:

First of all it measures 24 ¾ inches on the sixth string

It has good intonation all the way up the fret board on the sixth string

The intonation on the first string beyond the 12th fret becomes sharp

It doesn’t match any scale calculated by dividing by 1.05946309436

If it was worked out by the usual method it would have good intonation on the first string, not the 6th string

Always refer back to my note at the beggining *

To further explain - While examining the intonation on my Fender I found it to be good all the way on the first string but on the sixth string, beyond the 12th fret it became flat. If you were to correct this you would spread the frets out beyond the 12th fret, which is what I believe Gibson have done, which explains why it is sharp on the first string beyond the 12th fret (maybe it’s more suited for heavier gauge strings)

The 12th fret on my SG measured 12-9/32 inches. If you double that you get 24-9/16 If you put this into the fret calculator and compare the results with the SG. The 12th fret is the same (obviously) but the SG frets gradually move away so the first fret is closer to the nut and the 22nd is closer to the bridge. To me it looks like there is compensation involved

I have tried numerous ways to get the fret calculator to match the Gibson scale. Most recently, last night I explored the possibility that they moved the nut closer. Nine years ago I tried things like moving each fret back 1.43mm. (I didn’t have Excel or a Casio back in those days, I did it the hard way with a calculator that went 12 digits beyond the decimal point)

So anyway that’s about all I can say but I think I have a good point, based on the results from the guitars I tested. I am very eager to pay-off my new Les Paul and measure its fret spacing and test its intonation

By the way I forgot an important comment when you said "Thank god for adjustable bridges" Before deciding on the Les Paul recently, I went " " that close to buying a guitar that had a fixed tailpiece/bridge. Well you could move it back and forth but you couldn't intonate individual strings

[WezV]

But what this means is the perfect mathematical formula naturally suits a light gauge string. I think the first reason we need compensation is because a thicker string will not vibrate all the way up to the break-off point (I think that’s what you call it) A very light gauge string like a .009 will vibrate all the way from the nut to the bridge and therefore very little or no compensation is needed on the first string

i see no reason for that. whether using light or heavy strings they will vibrate all the way between nut and bridge, although obviously not evenly. compensatation is not needed for the reason you state. compensation is needed becuase the action of fretting a string involves pushing it against the frets, you are effectively bending the string slightly when you fret.

I believe the Gibson 24 ¾ inch scale is worked out focusing on the sixth string and compensation is built into the fret spacing. I think they have played around with the compensation over the years to suit the most popular string gauges at the time, rather than the actual scale. And that’s why the distance from the nut to the 12th fret varies.

they may have chosen a scale length that works out to be 24 3/4" when the 6th string is intonated but i assure you there is no compensation worked into the scale length. That in itself may be an intersting idea worthy of a bit of study... but it is not what gibson do

First of all it measures 24 ¾ inches on the sixth string

It has good intonation all the way up the fret board on the sixth string

The intonation on the first string beyond the 12th fret becomes sharp

It doesn’t match any scale calculated by dividing by 1.05946309436

If it was worked out by the usual method it would have good intonation on the first string, not the 6th string

Always refer back to my note at the beggining *

To further explain - While examining the intonation on my Fender I found it to be good all the way on the first string but on the sixth string, beyond the 12th fret it became flat. If you were to correct this you would spread the frets out beyond the 12th fret, which is what I believe Gibson have done, which explains why it is sharp on the first string beyond the 12th fret (maybe it’s more suited for heavier gauge strings)

there is no reason for a guitar to be sharp beyond the twelve fret on any of the 6 strings whatever scale you choose. I have played about with many scale lengths over the last few years, mostly slotted myself using meausrements from a fret calculator. they all intonated damn near perfectly all the way up the fretboard, and if they didnt it was because of a specific set-up issue rather than a scale length issue

The 12th fret on my SG measured 12-9/32 inches. If you double that you get 24-9/16 If you put this into the fret calculator and compare the results with the SG. The 12th fret is the same (obviously) but the SG frets gradually move away so the first fret is closer to the nut and the 22nd is closer to the bridge. To me it looks like there is compensation involved

i would have been intersted to see accurate fret-to-fret measurements on that, its possible that a tech/luthier had a play with it

I have tried numerous ways to get the fret calculator to match the Gibson scale. Most recently, last night I explored the possibility that they moved the nut closer.

moving the nut closer is something you see done on purpose more often now. it can help. It also sometimes happens accidently if a nut has been replaced

By the way I forgot an important comment when you said "Thank god for adjustable bridges" Before deciding on the Les Paul recently, I went " " that close to buying a guitar that had a fixed tailpiece/bridge. Well you could move it back and forth but you couldn't intonate individual strings

i just built one

notice this one is completely uncompensated, no staggered ridge on the top. this is built for tone, obviously intonation is compromised but its still capable of sweet music and thats really the point at the end of the day

to set its intonation i focus on the A and B string so the rest are slightly compromised rather than focus on the outside E strings and have the D and G strings very compromised- but i can focus on any string and get it to intonate perfectly - its just that this bridge design will not let each individual one be set so the best compromise has to be reached

i used a stew-mac fretboard on it for convienience

by the way, i am not meaning to come across negative. i think you have some interesting ideas... but i also think you are overthinking something in a way gibson never did... as far as i am aware (and i have been wrong before)

[Crusader]

Nice looking guitar but I don't think I could go without a tuneomatic bridge! I will get around to putting up pictures of mine one day. They look quite good but they sound like carp

Anyway back to this hot topic of the 24 3/4" scale, last week I was looking around for opinions on Gibson intonation and I forgot about this. It took me hours to find it again but on this site http://www.edroman.com/guitars/gibson.htm Someone makes this comment

"On most Gibson electrics the scale length from the nut to 12th fret is 24 9/16"

No problem with that...but the scale length above the 12th fret is 24 3/4..."

So there is someone else out there who has a similar view to mine, and its consistent with my claims that the spacings are spread-out above the 12th fret (which cause the 1st string intonation to be high on the upper notes)

I tried out the combination of 24 9/16 & 24 3/4 and came up with these results. Above the 12th fret is spot-on but below is not, particularly the 5th fret

These calculations are in millimetres by the way. I hope that's not confusing but the main thing is to look at the difference

The lists haven't come out right and I don't know how to to fix it, sorry

24 9/16"

and 24 3/4" My SG Difference

1 35.02 34.80 0.22

2 68.07 67.80 0.27

3 99.26 98.90 0.36

4 128.71 128.30 0.41

5 156.50 155.70 0.80

6 182.73 182.40 0.33

7 207.49 207.20 0.29

8 230.86 230.70 0.16

9 252.92 252.70 0.22

10 273.74 273.60 0.14

11 293.39 293.30 0.09

12 311.94 312.00 -0.06

13 329.58 329.60 -0.02

14 346.23 346.30 -0.07

15 361.95 361.80 0.15

16 376.78 376.90 -0.12

17 390.78 390.80 -0.02

18 404.00 403.90 0.10

19 416.48 416.50 -0.02

20 428.25 428.30 -0.05

21 439.36 439.40 -0.04

22 449.85 449.80 0.05

Other things to mention

The SG I had was a '61 Re-Issue Les Paul

I Took the measurements with a steel rule and a magnifying glass, down the centre of the fretboard with the strings still on and in-tune. The neck was supported and the head over the edge of the bench. I measured it numerous times and came up with consistent readings. So I am confident that my measurements are accurate within 0.2mm

This is the first time I've found something that matches (even if it is only the last ten frets) I'm still trying out formulas on the first 12 frets but I think Gibson must have just played around with spacings and got something that works, disregarding the mathematical formula. And keep in mind that this guitar had very good intonation. It wasn't perfect and I would probably come up with different results if I were to check it now, but nevertheless it was good

By the way I know I'm going to great lengths to figure this out, I must be crazy!

Edited February 8, 2009 by Crusader

[Crusader]

I've been trying to insert some pictures but I can't figure it out. Can anybody help please?

One of the images I want to show compares the SG scale with a normal 24 9/16

The SG first fret is closer to the nut and the 22nd is closer to the bridge

As mentioned before I had good intonation on the 6th string but was sharp on high notes on the first string

One idea I had was to use the Gibson scale on the 6th string side and 24 9/16 on the first string side

This would create a 'fan-like' appearance and I'm contemplating it for my next guitar (On previous guitars I made it 'fan' the other way round)

Anyway here's another site I found talking about Gibson's lousy intonation http://www.jbonamassa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=5147

Someone introduces this guitar saying "These guitars can be perfectly in tune and intonnated. The fretboard has "fanned frets" and the bridge is distance compensated. Check em out! John Mayer played one back in 2002"

http://www.novaxguitars.com/sales/index.html

Fanned frets! - No matter what you think of, someone else has already done it!

(I thought I was going to come up with a revolutionary idea and make millions!)

By the way I got onto that True Temperament site and it was very interesting

Whenever I talk to my mother about all this stuff she always mentions Bach's "Well tempered Clavier"

[WezV]

having fanned frets doesnt directly improve intonation, you work out the fretspacing the same way you would on any other guitar and add compenation to that measurement after positioning the fret slots, again, the same way you would on any other guitar. ... the idea that having fanned frets automatically improves temperament and intonation is just sales blurb

however...

what it does do is allow a more appropriate tension on each string which can make setting the intonation easier... but its still the same process. temperament is a whole other issue and i dont believe there is any reason for it to affect it positively or negatively

very familiar with ralph's work, if you do a search on here you will find many topics on the subject, also search for multiscale and compound scale as the terminology varies.

having another look at ralph's site i think a lot of people will like to see this from his FAQ.

Do I need to pay a licensing fee to build a Fanned-Fret instrument?

No.

anyway, putting a picture up. You need to upload the photo to a hosting site such as photobucket. once the picture is there you will see code under or next to it that allows you to post it.