Crusader

Are you contemplating making a guitar two frets longer than 25 1/2 inches? I have done this and its about 28 5/8" I did it to tune down to 'D' but its a bit of a stretch to tune to 'E' I've also done extensive experiments with various scale lengths vs pickup position. I found its best to stick to the same pu positions as for normal scale lengths. By the way pu position does make a difference no matter where you're playing. I find the sweetest spot for neck pu sound is above the 12th fret. I'm sure I''ve seen Vivian Cambell switch to neck for playing in this area on a Les Paul What I'm contemplating for my next guitar is the Gibson scale plus one fret on each end. Which gives you 24 frets and the neck pickup shouldn't have to move too much (imagine a Les Paul with 23 frets) I'm hoping it won't lose too much of the neck pu sound but you have to also consider the string tension. The scale length becomes about 26" which should tune to E with ease and be good for drop-tunings What it means is a scale length about a 1/2 inch longer than a Strat. I've actually been trying out one of my longer scale guitars tonight, tuned to D-sharp (instead of D) and it seems okay (ie the first fret is 26" from the bridge) Good luck with your project!

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"

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!

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 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

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!

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

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

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?

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