STAHLER Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Has anyone tryed this . I might give it a try i dont know yet. What do you guys think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeli Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 What they say might as well be true but it seems to me that It will cause the strings to be worn out extremely fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarfrenzy Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 That's exactly what I'd see happening and seeing that they use stainless steel frets it really looks like it would make your guitar a sting breaking machine. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammermc Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Seems interesting. If we would rely on their opinion it would mean that almost all of the older instruments are out of tone.But the idea of those frets seems to be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Its a crock of ****, and a marketting exercise to gain sales via peoples gulibilty. Notice his list of "must ask yourself" questions to frighten the user, which have ZERO relevance to the "patented" frets he is trying to sell. Ive NEVER had a guitar that couldnt be set up and intonated properly due to the frets being too wide. The contact "break point" on the fret is the same, regardless of wire width, relative to the correct intonation. Furthermore, his own guitars in the gallery dont seem to be fitted with his "must have" frets. Looking elsewhere on the site, he is claiming to have timber that has been changed at a molecular level by lightning bolts, which improves tone (yeah, right, who is his supplier, and do they specialise in natural disaster timber??!!??), he lists all the timbers by the state or country they come from (eg: ohio walnut, german holly, nigerian ebony) which are all things ive been taugh by marketting gurus, on how to sell items that need to appear to be unique when they arent, leading to possible market share through gulibilty. You'll also notice his models are all called "Masterpiece" giving the impression that they are the best of the best. I can see bad neck joins on one guitar, with inlays over the joins of two others (why would you hide good workmanship?) and binding/heel cap glue joints seperating in another guitar, all in his featured gallery... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitarMaestro Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 This is the biggest most stupid crap I have ever read! Even if your fret crown wood be 10 mm wide the string would rest on ONE point so to speak as long as the crown is properly radiused. The length where the string touches the fret is not 1/10000" smaller with his must-have frets then with usual frets that are properly crowned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazyderek Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 not to cause a ruccus or anything, but he does have somewhat of a point with this diagramm the harder you fret a note on wider frets the more out of tune you'll go unless you have perfect touch in every finger even when your chording... that doesn't mean his frets are the holly grail of fretting solutions to this problem... Ever wonder why people have been switching to the skinny tall wire now adays? the dunlop 6105 you've been seeing on the signature ibanez models instead of the plain old jumbo/jumbo wire is skinnier then jumbo, yet still maintains a good height, EDIT: after looking at the drawing, i noticed the string over his fret looks more like a sine wave function then a straight string, i'm wondering if you actually need a certain width in the fret from keeping it bowing up after the fret like that? what i mean is there must be an optimal fret with to avoid both these problems.. fret to skinny (his) and you get that scalloped neck effect on the tunning, (you press to hard and bend the note out of tune) fret to wide (and flat) and you're string will contact the wrong part of the fret as you press harder or agian if they haven't been crowned properly or they just worn down flat from usage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 not to cause a ruccus or anything, but he does have somewhat of a point with this diagramm No, he doesnt have a point at all. The harder you press the string, the higher the pitch is. Correct?? Thats regardless of fret wire width, correct?? Now, if the fret is pointed at the top, the "string break point" is constant, regardless of how hard you press, correct? If you have a super mumma jumbo wide fret, with a nice crown on it, the harder you press, the more the string wants to "rise up" (as it does regardless of fret wire type/shape), and in doing so, MOVES THE "STRING BREAK POINT" AWAY FROM THE BRIDGE, effectively lengthening the string length, therefore dropping the pitch. Youve pressed down just as hard on the string, to achieve the exact same string tension, but youve also lengthened the string, dropping the pitch slightly (although not as much as what youve raised it by pressing). So, his frets are worse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbkim Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Heh, it's good to see such a lively debate now I didn't even get one reply when I posted it about a month ago: http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=6383 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanKirk Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 It does seem to be alot of marketing hype to me. It also looks like the fret would wear a little quicker with all the string contact on such a small point, so you'd need to have this guy dress the frets more often but I would have to play one for awhile to see how big a difference it would make (but I won't). Seems like he's talking about fixing problems that are very minor and only a handful of people would ever notice. The majority of most markets seems like they cater to gulible people...I've been one and probably will be again. but not with that product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Rosenberger Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Tom Anderson was using wire shaped like that before he went to SS Frets. BFD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarfrenzy Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Sorry, but I'll stick with the old crown fret method, I don't see any reason to use those type of frets myself. Even if those frets intonated the tuning better, which I can't see how, I would think that it would be very uncomfortable playing a guitar fretted like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Headen Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Plus, like Perry said, my guitar intonates well enough for me anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 At the very top of that link page, it looks like the frets have had a pretty good leveling, basically making the tops like normal frets as far as the string to fret-top contact is concerned. From talking to some other repair guys, we suspect stainless wire needs even more leveling than normal fret-wire, because the harder the material , the harder to get a consistant size running it through the dies. If Dunlop 6105 is a bad as it is, we think any stainless will be even worse than that. They do have their own look, which I could care less about. The guy has a patent on the design, so you're stuck with him for such a job, but maybe he's real good, I sure don't know. Instead of frets shaped like that, I'd be interested in some that are just really narrow, like a crown width about .050". This is because when I heard an old Martin with .050" wide bar-frets, I thought it sounded better than most acoustics I have ever heard. But , like those bar frets, I'd want the crown height around .050" tall.(bar frets don't have a crown, but I mean how much is above the fret-board surface) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsl602000 Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 If Dunlop 6105 is a bad as it is hmmm... I fretted quite a few necks lately with 6105 and I had to do alot of leveling indeed... so it's the fretwire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Rosenberger Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 If Dunlop 6105 is a bad as it is hmmm... I fretted quite a few necks lately with 6105 and I had to do alot of leveling indeed... so it's the fretwire? Yeah, I hate it too. I switched to 6100 because of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanKirk Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Maybe I could patent a fret that's razor blade sharp and market it to shredders. Then they'de have to learn to be precise or they'd shave off their fingertips Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.