Crusader

My brother bought one of the guitars I made but I think that was just to make me feel good. I asked for about 200 dollars His kids are starting lessons and apparently when the guitar teacher saw it, he was all over it asking "Oh wow, who made this...?" That thing has a SD Invader in it...I want it back!

Well, watcha do that for?

Laughing Out Loud I know what you mean I hope all this isn't too much but - The first pic is a page form my notes (check date top LHS) and below it is my measurements off the SG I was trying all sorts of ways to figure out the SG frets are done Over on the right is a long number and a list below it. Either side of the list is how much it differs from the measurements I took .1 .04 .1 .11 .48 etc etc The numbers weren't accurate enough for me...***? In this next pic I show how the SG calculates via the normal formula vs "The Kingfisher" method (haha) Note how the number is more than 18...huh? but it matches the SG measured spacings the best. The number that matches the LP is a bit different Lastly I checked the intonation of the Strat Copy that I made It has basically a Gibson fret spacing on the 6th string side and a Standard scale on the 1st string side The frets are not exactly where I wanted them to be though (I am a lousy fret-worker) Hope all this is helpful or at least interesting cheers Doug Ps Wes, don't look at the numbers.....haha

I just thought I would chuck in a couple more comments I found in my notes from ten years ago the number 1.058784784 when trying to figure out the SG scale It matches fairly well so I don't know why but I abandoned the single formula concept Using the 3 different scales method gets the same results but its so laborious Further tinkering with numbers has revealed this 1.0588 matches the SG but the 5th fret is still 0.5mm out - that has probably got a lot to do with why I abandoned it I re-measured the LP a bit more today and am convinced that several frets are 'exact' in inches (I have always measured frets in both metric and Imperial) For example the 22nd fret is 17 23/32" which converts to 450.0563mm Using these exact imperial measurements I came up with 1.0588705 Whichever number Gibson use, this is surely the method to get these fret placements, not the three different standard scales Even though I spent countless hours measuing and calculating over the years I am so glad to finally have this sussed. I call it the Kingfisher method lol! WesV how do you get images of Excel on here? do you copy & paste into MSPaint or something? Kingfisher I was thinking with those experiments you could try doing it with super-low action That way you could find out how much compensation you need just due to thicker strings

Kingfisher that experiment you are doing is just what I have always wanted to do ...Is that a rusty old door hinge you're using as a tailpiece on the left? ha ha! Well I have just been crunching some numbers and guess what? Using 1.058874 instead of 1.059463094 gives me the same result in a single formula as using the 3 different scales method I was using And to convert it to the type of number Kingfisher is using you calculate as follows 1/(1-1/1.058874) = 17.9854265 But you can round it to 17.985 Calculating with 1.058874 or 17.985 in combination with 628.65 (24 3/4" not 24 9/16!!!) will give you the measurements I got off the LP except for 3 differences of 0.1mm I use excel and it goes like this to get distance from nut to fret =SUM(1.058874-1.058874/628.65^1) = first fret 35mm =SUM(1.058874-1.058874/628.65^2) = second 68mm =SUM(1.058874-1.058874/628.65^3) = third 99.1mm However what I do is have the big numbers in cells 27 and 30 so I can change them so the actual formula looks like this =SUM(G27-G27/G30^14) etc While inputing the formulas I use 'x' and 'y' then Copy and Paste then use "Find and Replace" otherwise G27 ends up being G49 at the 22nd fret Getting the numbers 1 to 22 is still laborious though. You have to press F2 and go through each cell and rename them, but once you're done you can copy and paste the whole lot into another section and change the scale length and calculating number ooohh I spend too much time doing this sort of junk Hope that helps, cheers!

low end fuzz do you know you can delete unecessary paragraphs from the quotes? Leaving the whole lot in uses up a lot of space I thought the diagram was self-explanatory but perhaps I should have said more about it It is just 3 different scale lengths compared to each other The 24 9/16 and the SG both start at the nut The 24 3/4 starts at the 22nd fret (ie and works backwards) to show that the SG scale matches 24 3/4 from about the 12th fret upward The main purpose of the diagram was to show how the SG scale is not 24 9/16" (I should have left the 24 3/4 out but I would have had to take the time to modify and re-load to photobucket) The only place where they really match is the 1st and 12th frets Starting at that point you can see that the SG frets creep closer to the nut and in the other direction they creep closer to the bridge The fact that the SG 1st fret is closer to the nut indicates there is compensation at the nut (it is not misplaced) If you put the compensation back on, the 12th fret would no longer be half of 24 9/16 So like stewmac says, "...it is...based on a true scale of about 24-9/16" However I would put it like this "...based on a STANDARD scale of about 24 9/16" Now looking at the two scales again The SG frets above the 12th fret creep closer to the bridge I find this results in much better intonation right up to the 22nd fret on the 6th string A standard scale becomes very flat above the 12th fret on the 6th string, if intonated perfectly at the 12th fret (and this is one of the main points that kingfisher was talking about, although I dont' think he actually stated which string he was referring to) I was just trying to point out that I think his idea is a good one, yet he is not the first to think of it and I used the Gibson 24 3/4 as an example. Also, I have actually tried making a couple of guitars with the bridge straight across (no compensation) by using a different scale method on the 6th string side and a standard one on the 1st string side. I made them about ten years ago but checking the intonation is something which is still in progress - when I have the time...it takes so much time!!! is something that I would like to send to the mythbusters department. I have never heard about this and I have a really hard time believing that I should have been in this business without picking it up. I suspect that it is the commonly known low quality of the Gibsons, like that misplaced nut above that started this myth Yes there are some things which seem to be very hard to prove/disprove. Have a look at this discussion and scroll down to the post where a guy starts "Love the site (especially the rants) http://www.edroman.com/guitars/gibson.htm He says: "On most Gibson electrics the scale length from the nut to 12th fret is 24.562" No problem with that...but the scale length above the 12th fret is 24.75. That means OK intonation from the nut to 12th fret (especially with Buzz Feiten Tuning System or similar), but really BAD intonation above the 12th fret" (He doesn't say it but I'm sure he is referring to the 1st and 2nd strings) I was trying to find a single formula to figure-out the Gibson fret spacing for years and it was this comment that lead me to my final conclusions by using a combination of three (Any new readers please read post 9 on this thread) Putting aside his anti-Gibson approach, he is saying the same thing as I am, that the Gibson 24 3/4 is not a standard-formula scale. I have searched and searched and to this day have never found another person saying this on the internet Talking about Gibson low quality, I am well aware that it comes and goes. My first LP was a dog but the later two were/are very good. Talking about fret spacings, according to the measurements I took they match each other within 0.1mm except for the 5th fret on the SG. It was 0.7mm out...but the funny thing, that guitar intonated very well over the whole fretboard, except that little bit sharp on the 1st and 2nd string above the 12th fret Anyway it seems that kingfisher has left the discussion and in any case talking is not going to solve anything. If you take the information I have put forward I am confident you will find it to be correct cheers

I was just thinking they might reserve that special scale length for the higher-end guitars, but what you say also makes sense Ah yes but then the 12th fret won't be half the scale length from the nut I don't think Kingfisher was talking about not moving the bridge at all, in the third post he says "...so less movement of the bridge will be necessary" As far as I can see, this is exactly what Kingfisher was suggesting, and its like I commented "no matter what you think of it has already been done" Anyhow I think the ultimate solution is fanned frets Look forward to your results from the Junior Keep in mind I found measuring frets to be very difficult but I am a fanatic, I'm crazy. A normal person would not go to such lengths. Its not something I would want to do again. Getting out of bed at 3am to get the guitar out to check something over again...no no I'm getting too old for these crazy things!!! cheers!

so there is always some room for debate on this You might find a Junior has a standard scale length, I'm quite sure Epiphones do Just to give you a bit more info, I first encountered this different scale length after I bought my first LP in 1977 I tried to do the intonation on the 1st string and found when I made it correct at the 12th fret it was progressively sharp up to the 22nd fret Next time I was in the shop I brought this up and thats when it was explained to me that the Gibson has not just a different scale but a different method of fret spacing. One thing that didn't help, I was using 38 to 8 guage strings. I'm sure a set of 52 to 12s would intonate a lot better So heres a suggestion Instead of measuring each fret you could just set the intonation to be correct at the 12th fret, on the 1st string using a 9 or 10 guage string (with very low action, with a nice straight neck, with that teeny bit of relief) Then if its correct at the 22nd fret, it is surely a standard scale If it is sharp it is likely to be the special Gibson 24 3/4 scale Regarding that quote from the stewmac website I see it as just a way of side-stepping the issue because they don't want to get into complicated explanations On the first guitar I took measurements from, the 12th fret was exactly half of 24 9/16" - not 'about' 24 9/16" and yet the spacings do not match what you get from the standard formula Here are two clues The Gibson 1st fret is closer to the nut than a standard 24 9/16" scale The distance from 1st fret to 22nd fret is more than the standard 24 9/16" scale Hey I forgot I had this. I was going to make a better diagram but who's got time... Here is the difference between the standard 24 9/16 and SG scales (I also chucked in the standard 24 3/4) It is very minimal but it is there If you only had one or two frets out a tiny bit you would consider them to be outliers But this diagram shows a consistent slight difference between scales Anyway as you say there is always going to be debates, and thats because we are never going to hear official word from Gibson (unless they think it will improve sales!!!) Prostheta I can understand your frustration (lotsalaughs) mmm fretless...it would take a lot of practice to put your fingers in the right place when playing chords. But you could aim at "just intonation" which sounds a lot nicer than the tempered system

I don't follow what you mean, its just a calculation as follows (628.65-(628.65/1.05888229^1) = First fret (628.65-(628.65/1.05888229^2) = Second fret (628.65-(628.65/1.05888229^3) = Third fret - and so on I did these calculations very quickly and the results show that you could use kingfishers idea with some degree of success. But you would have to actually make an instrument to see how well it works. At a closer look I might find I was completely wrong LOL! Its on post 9 on this thread but like I say it is not necessarily how they worked it out. Its just a method I found that matches the measurements I took I thought it was common knowledge that the Gibson fret spacing is based on a different rule-of-thumb, but what methods and guitars have you used to take your measurements? I took measurements off two different guitars in 1997 and 2009 with the same steel rule, with a magnifying glass and/or two or three pairs of glasses under all different kinds of lighting. I must have measured every fret a hundred times and when I measured the second one I did not look at the figures from the first one. I measured in inches and millimetres The result is they have a different amount of compensation at the nut but apart from that they match each other within 0.1mm And some other "fun-facts" - The first one measured exactly 12 9/32" to the 12th fret The second one was slightly more at the 12th fret but the 1st fret measures 1 3/8" - That is exactly 1/18th of 24 3/4"!!!

Still going with this are we? Has anyone actually tried the idea proposed by kingfisher? I find it works fairly accurately at least for the Gibson 24 3/4 scale Taking the nut to 22nd fret measurement for 24 3/4" Gibson 450.1mm Standard 452.2mm The Standard calculation is as follows (628.65-(628.65/1.059463094^22) = 452.2 Rearrange the formula 22(need a square-root symbol here) (628.65/(628.65-452.2) = 1.059463094 Replace 452.2 with 450.1 and you get your new number 22(need a square-root symbol here) (628.65/(628.65-450.1) = 1.05888229 (628.65-(628.65/1.05888229^22) = 450.1 Calculating with this number 1.05888229 for all the other frets gets very close to the Gibson 24 3/4 scale Measuring to the 12th fret, doubling and using it in the standard formula is no-where near as accurate This may not be what you want though because as I said the Gibson scale is a bit sharp above the 12th fret on the first and second strings Finding what you want may take a lot of trial and error Happy hunting!

The way I would look at this and answer this question Measure along the 1st string where there is little or no compensation (assuming the intonation has been set correctly) In the first picture you would not measure from either blue or yellow line but where you can see the string breaks from the nut (as Woodenspoke said) Measure from the nut to the middle of the 12th fret and double the number. This will give you the scale length provided it is a standard scale

Talking about compromises and string guage Standard fret spacing only suits light guage strings (ie 1st and 2nd) because you have very little compensation at the bridge. The thicker the string, the more compensation you need. Part of the problem is already solved for you by the thicker strings being wound. Ever notice your 4th string usually has less compensation than your 3rd? Testing the intonation on a standard scale I found it got very sharp above the 12th fret on the 6th string. A higher action made it work better though I found the Gibson scale (with a close action) provides good intonation on the 6th to 3rd strings right up to fret 22, but becomes a little sharp on the 1st and 2nd above the 12th fret. My thoughts are that it is more important to have good intonation on the 1st string all the way to the 22nd fret rather than the 6th. But this scale was probably designed to suit heavier guage strings My remedy was to use a standard scale on the 1st string side and the Gibson scale on the 6th. In other words a "Multiscale" but I still find in necessary to have a little compensation at the nut on the 3rd string and there are some areas where the intonation is a bit 'wonky' So I agree that changing the string guage would affect intonation but this would apply to whatever fret spacing you use. Any idea would be a compromise but I think kingfishers idea is good and why not give it a go? You might come up with a winner!

Oh well I can only go on what I have read here and there Thanks for the correction cheers!

... I thought African mahogany was lighter than the South American species...makes me wonder! Maybe two of the guitars I have made are actually Brazillian, not Sapelle (African) All my calculations are in metric so I will have to do some converting and see what happens

I do believe you are on to something but no matter what anyone thinks of it has already been done I can assure you! The Gibson 24 3/4 scale is based exactly on what you are talking about I don't know the process they use to come up with thier fret positions but after countless measurements and thinking and figuring things out, this is what my conclusions are From the nut to fret 8 it is 24 9/16 (With about 0.1mm compensation at the nut) From fret 9 to fret 17 it is 24 11/16 From fret 18 to fret 22 it is 24 3/4 I found that this process matches the measurements I took from two guitars I have owned to be accurate within 0.1 of a millimetre

Ha Ha lotsa laughs A fretboard off a broken neck is where I got one for my very first build And its probably the only way we're going to get Brazillian Rosewood from now on without costing an arm and a leg nice pics!

I found this while surfing around tonight and thought it would be of interest http://www.nmguitars.com/A_Handkerchief_Sa...Chambered1.html I like the way he does his routering. I do things in a very similar way, but with Rock Maple and Jarrah (Not that I've done anything lately though)

I really don't want this thread to go on to yet another page but a couple of comments Pickup at the second octave I've always known you get the sweetest sounds playing on and around the 12th fret (in comparison, the open string sounds quite ordinary) but it took me a while to cotton-on to this; Having the pickup there isn't in the optimal place for the open string, its the best place for the 12th fret. You want the antinode of the fundamental over the pickup, not the second harmonic. So as you play up the fretboard the sound gets better. The seventh fret is about where is starts sounding really good Nodes-and-such of the upper harmonics I have to admit I've gone into this area more than neccessarry and I've overlooked the more simple things like what I just mentioned. However its been a very fascinating journey that perhaps the majority would find boring but a few may find quite interesting. I'd love to show people what I've found but it needs some explaining Equal Tempered frets I knew from the start that this is an issue but I'm sure it doesn't throw the whole idea out the window. I vaguely remember from college physics lessons that scientists sometimes develop "mathematical models" using simple numbers, then apply it to a real-world situation where they have no idea what numbers are actually involved, but it still works Definition of "Sweet Spot" This is something which should have been discussed at the start. It may turn out we're talking about different things or using a different "language" (if you know what I mean) For example I never heard the term 'sweet spot' before joining this forum. But after searching recently it came up again and again..."buy this guitar, pickup in the sweet spot" So now I can understand that people here are probably sick of hearing it By the way I actually saw a guitar recently that has the neck pickup further up the neck than usual. The twin neck Gibson SG. I always knew they only had 20 frets but it didn't twig that the pickup is hard against the end of the fretboard. The inner coil is under the second octave (And just to think, I've hear Stairway to Heaven a billion times!)

Well actually I have explored this quite extensively but I don't think I've been very good at explaining things. I started this thread talking about sweet spots in general. I know for myself that with two single coils (bridge and middle) if you move the middle more than ¼ of an inch in either direction you start to lose that quacky sound. Surely that indicates a sweet spot for the middle pickup. But ever since the first reply the topic has been about the neck pickup sweet spot To give you some idea of how far I have explored the overtones, I have an Excel worksheet showing the ½ wavelengths of the first 128 harmonics up to the 20th fret. I have it set up for different pickup positions and also Gibson fret spacings If you want to critisise me because I'm only using maths, I don’t see what else is involved. When you move a pickup on a guitar nothing else changes. The timber, strings and pickup all remain the same. Wavelengths follow a very mathematical order. The results show, for any note you play, there is an abundance of overtones that have nodes or antinodes over the second octave node, which is what you would want to get "the neck pickup sound" (Which of course is not suitable for all types of music) I've tried various ways of explaining what I can see so I hope that clears it up a bit. By the way I would say the neck pickup would be 19 1/8" from the nut on a Telecaster

Depends what type of laquer was used. As far as I know some types of laquer you could just rub down and re-spray that area then finish off with sanding and polish. Other types you would have to re-spray the whole guitar

I think a person is more inclined to accept your opinion if you guys are less insulting Of course I realise other people have tried to figure out the 'sweet spot' mystery but I have the point of view that if someone figured it out with big budgets they wouldn't just go out and tell everybody. Either that or they missed something because I found what I was looking for and it would take a lot to convince me I'm wrong First of all I can hear the difference and its not just because the pickup is further from the bridge. There's something else going on and there's got to be a scientific reason for it. I believe its all to do with overtones. The pickup may observe a large cross-section of the string but its very small compared to listening to an accoustic instrument where you just hear the whole lot all at once They say some people can hear overtones and some can't. That's just a part of the imperfect world we live in. Take my eyesight for example. I can't read a steet sign at ten paces but I can see in the dark when everyone else says its just pitch-black DISCLAIMER: A lot of what I'm saying here is my own opinion To continue with what I was saying in the previous post I believe a pickup can detect unecessary overtones and the best way to avoid that for the neck pickup is to have it at the 2nd octave node. The reason I put forward is best represented by playing at the 12th fret where the fundamental is at its antinode and every harmonic is either a node or antinode The antinodes do the work and nodes do nothing (as far as I know) so it's a perfect combination. The string passes through the magnetic field with even, parralel vibrations which provide a cleaner signal. I'm sure anyone would agree that you get the sweetest sound at the 12th fret. My main point being that antinodes over the pickup are good and it’s a bonus if your overtones have them too Talking about it in general The further the pickup is from the bridge, the closer it is to the antinode (centre) of the open string. When playing up the fretboard you move the antinode of the fundamental closer to the pickup. It reaches perfection at the 12th fret, then passes it as you play up to the 22nd fret Overtones at the second octave When playing the open string every second overtone has a node or antinode occuring over the second octave. When playing a fretted note the string still vibrates in its full length, so some of those overtones are still there. The string behind the fret adds tone and sustain - a bit like when you play a high note on the thicker strings compared to playing the same note on the first string Obviously fretted notes have their own harmonic series. Many of the overtones have antinodes over the 2nd octave and they just happen to have the same wavelengths as the ones left from the open string! When you have the pickup set back as with a 24 fret guitar you separate this “marriage” between the two harmonic series. You may still have antinodes over the pickup which both have in common but its all hit-and-miss There's too much to put it all in a nutshell so I'm working on a step by step way of explaining it which I may post up later on I’ve worked everything out based on the harmonic series but I believe what I’m saying will still work on evenly spaced frets. Also - people say the pickups field is too wide to focus on such a small area of the string but I don't think it destroys what I’m saying altogether. If you had a moveable pickup like on this guitar there would be a gradual change in tone as you move it along

Could you elaborate? How well does a pickup work? If the string passes across evenly (in the case of an antinode) would it sound different to when it passes over on an angle? (somwhere between an antinode and a node) I imagine you would get a smoother response from antinodes

I know during this discussion that I’ve waffled-on with long boring posts but I’m just trying to find the best way to put my point across. I have delved into this deeper & deeper and every conclusion points towards nodes and antinodes having a great deal to do with the sound you get from pickup position On the other hand the results I’ve been getting may be misleading. In any case the neck pickup loses its distinct sound as you move it away from the neck and I don’t believe its just because its getting closer to the bridge. Without going into great detail I think you start getting unwanted overtones Another thing that hasn’t been clarified is how do you define “sweet spot” We might find that we have a different idea on what it means. People keep commenting that the magnetic field is too wide to detect a specific point on the string, but wouldn’t that just make the sweet spot wider? So, more like a “sweet area” I think of it like tuning a radio. You turn the dial until you start getting a signal, then its good for a while. Then you turn the dial back to the centre of that good area, and that’s your sweet spot If we could all agree with something like that then what are we arguing about? (Oh yeah those pesky nodes!) cheers

This is typical of me, I forgot to mention that the longer scale guitar is tuned to D and the regular scale tuned to E. So the freely vibrating string I'm comparing is exactly the same length and pitch. The strings, tension, timber, pickups etc etc are all exactly the same

I lied ! I think that would be true ONLY if the frets were positioned to play the (transposed-down) overtones of the fundamental of the open string... Take the A string. Unfretted, its fundamental is 110 Hz. This produces an overtone C# of 550 Hz. Transpose this down to be in the same octave: the C# right above A110 should be 137.5 Hz...To get 137.5 Hz on a 110 Hz string, you will need to scoot the fourth fret back towards the nut (because the equal-tempered 3rd is sharp). Now the 4th fret position is "harmonically in tune" with the open string. NOW maybe the open string 2nd octave harmonic will come into play, because when you fret at the 4th fret, you aren't disturbing the harmonic nodes of the open string. But when you fret the 4th fret on a normal guitar, you introduce a whole new set of overtones that are harmonically out-of-tune with the fundamental of the open string, because the guitar is tempered. Perhaps a little off-topic, but it might be beneficial The comment I made was a while ago but its not off-topic at all. This is the sort of disscussion I was hoping for when I started the thread. Its good to hear from someone who knows about the harmonic series and the tempered system. I was waiting for someone to pick me on that one My answers to this are: * Firstly, I don't think sound waves in the vibrating string are very "fussy" - I'm sure wavelengths from one side of a fret will blend with ones of similar length from the other. (ie:) when you pinch a harmonic, you don't have to have your finger right on the spot to get it. There is an area of about 1/2 an inch 'grace' (so to speak) and I anticipate the same for the example you have given, and on top of that there is compensation at the nut to consider! * The harmonic series theoretically goes on up to infinity, so you will inevitably find a wavelength that goes into both sides even if it is way up in the series with a very small wavelength. (Just for the record on my guitar I calculated the 1/2 wavelength that will go into both sides at the 4th fret to be an impossible 0.000001252899814mm!!!) * There are also other wavelengths that come into play. Just one millimetre either side of the 4th fret are nodal points from the harmonic series with much more user-friendly wavelengths of ~ 6.5mm and ~ 26mm - which is not EXACTLY what I was saying but; The main point I'm saying is when playing a fretted note, the vibrations will transfer from one side of the fret to the other so its not like you have a shorter string. For example two of the guitars I made are exactly the same except one is 27 3/4" and the other 24 3/4" The longer one has a much deeper tone when playing the same note - and it must have a lot to do with the extra 3 inches of string This is very "general" though and not entirely related to the idea about the 2nd octave node but it plays a part 2.25AM I've got to go