Neck radii

[tot_Ou_tard]

I'm sure that we've had this discussion before, but a search yielded bumkiss.

What is your favorite neck radius & why.

I have two guitars, both Godins with 12" radii. I have no experience with other experience...what say you?

[just strum]

I know my Strat is 9.5 and I like the feel of it. I would guess my ARC300 is the same and the Gibson Dot may be bigger. I tried to locate info on the last two, but couldn't dig anything up. Oh, my SG seems close to 9.5.

I like all of them, although the ARC and the Strat feel identical - both are fast and play pretty easy. I don't have a complaint about the Epi's, they just feel a little different.

[Bloozcat]

Well, it does depend on the guitar. For Fenders and their clones, I like 9-1/2" or 10" radius (they're about identical in practical terms). I like the way they feel for chording, especially open chords low on the neck. And for lead parts, the radius is flat enough that notes don't fret out, even with a low action. I have one 10"-16" compound radius Strat clone that feels quite comfortable to play as well, and I even had a Strat clone neck that was 10"-17".

The two Agiles I have are both 13-3/4" radius, and they feel great for both chording and lead playing. My Ibanez AS-73 has, I believe, a 350mm (12.6") radius which is also quite comfortable. The Gibson's I've owned and/or played had 12" radii that I also liked.

I suppose the easiest way to sum it all up, is just to say that I'm probably not all that radius sensitive so much as I'm comfort/playabilty sensitive...if that makes any sense. If I was forced to choose one radius, though, I'd probably say 10".

[djmcconnell]

I'd be up for a tutorial (or link to one):

what kind of neck might be better for certain types of playing, hand size, etc.
how to determine the radius of my old guitar so I can compare to what I know (at least by feel)

[tot_Ou_tard]

Thanks Blooz & Strummy.

[Robert]

For strats, 9.5 inches. It's not the size that matters, it's the, well you know.

[sunvalleylaw]

I like the 9.5 on my strat way more than the flatter one on my Fully, which is maybe a 12?

[hubberjub]

My Modulus is compound while my Gibson an Heritage are both 12". My Strat is 9.5 but I actually like the feel of the 7.25" like on the vintage and reissue Fenders. I know they aren't as good for bending but they feel so comfortable when I'm comping. My Amalio Burquet has an infinitely large radius. That's my classical.

[tot_Ou_tard]

I always hear that chordwork is easier with a smaller radius, but that you risk fretting out as was mentioned by Blooz & the Hubberjub Bird.

I can see why that would be especially with bar chords. I've had to learn to get my finger pretty flat to fret a barre & making sure not to mute the first string when doing a partial barre with the ring finger acroos strings 2-4 took some work, but now it's pretty easy.

I would also think that fast and intricate finger work would be easier on a neck with a larger radius. Isn't that why they have them on classical guitars & shred-machines?

[Bloozcat]

One of the best compromises that I've seen - for Fender type guitars at least - is the compound radius that Tommy at US Custom Guitars offers. He has a 7-1/4" - 9-1/2" compound radius neck that he developed after several customers requested it. It does make sense. You get the ease of chording low on the neck, but you're not really penalized with chording higher up the neck - at least no more than with a straight 9-1/2" radius which most people don't object to. You can still bend the strings where you need to without a fretting out problem as well. The comments I've heard about this neck have all been favorable.

[ZMAN]

I have guitars that range from 7.25 to 12. I had a Fender FMT Tele that had a 15" radius, now that was flat.
I like the 12 inch for over all playing. My CIJ 68 Reissue Strat has the 7.25 and I don't like it. Fretting out is a big problem with them. My Deluxe Player is a 12 inch as well and makes the transition to the Gibsons with the 12 a lot easier.
One of my pet peeves is this push for medium jumbo frets. I wish they had a choice, I prefer standard size frets.

[Dauntless]

I prefer standard Fender 7.25 and 9.25.

When I play the flatter boards, my fretting hand actually achs at times.

I have smaller hands and I think the smaller radius alows my hand to roll over better with less stress.
I don't have a problem with fretting out if the guitar is set up correctly.
I can bend all day with the 7.25 and not have any problems at all, with fretting out or otherwise, and I think the key to that is useing 4 springs, with a floating trem.
YMMV ;)

[marnold]

Generally speaking for me, the flatter, the better. My Floyd has a 12" radius and my Fender is a 15.75". I've never tried a 7.5", but I've a feeling I wouldn't like it. The Jackson necks I think have 10-16" compound which is cool too.

[tot_Ou_tard]

One of the best compromises that I've seen - for Fender type guitars at least - is the compound radius that Tommy at US Custom Guitars offers. He has a 7-1/4" - 9-1/2" compound radius neck that he developed after several customers requested it. It does make sense. You get the ease of chording low on the neck, but you're not really penalized with chording higher up the neck - at least no more than with a straight 9-1/2" radius which most people don't object to. You can still bend the strings where you need to without a fretting out problem as well. The comments I've heard about this neck have all been favorable.
How does one set up the bridge on a compound neck? I use a metal radius tool to set the heights of the saddle so I get a 12" radius on the strings to match my board.

I'm not overly precise (given the differing string guages it wouldn't make sense to be), but I find it helps playability.

[Bloozcat]

How does one set up the bridge on a compound neck? I use a metal radius tool to set the heights of the saddle so I get a 12" radius on the strings to match my board.

I'm not overly precise (given the differing string guages it would make sense to be), but I find it helps playability.

I've heard of several ways to do this.

One way is to capo the first fret, then set each string height to 4/64" at the 17th fret. This is a basic set up, but it doesn't actually take into consideration the fact that the radius when projected past the end of the fretboard, is still getting flatter.

Another way, is to set the bridge saddles at the high end of the radius of the board. In this case, that would be 9-1/2" radius at the saddles.

The best way, IMO, is to calculate what the radius would be if the fretboard continued past the last fret, all the way to the bridge saddles. Remember, the radius on a compound neck is increasing gradually from the nut to the last fret, and continues to get flatter until it gets to the saddles - even though there isn't any fretboard left beneath the strings. Here's a great, concise, explanation of the calculation by a poster named Clorenzo on The Gear Page:

Since the radius increases linearly as you go from the nut towards the bridge, you can do a simple calculation: the last fret is approximately at 3/4 of the scale length from the nut. In your case, the radius has increased 9.5 - 7.25 = 2.25 for that length, so for the remaining 1/4 up to the bridge it should increase a further 2.25 / 3 = 0.75, which means a radius at the bridge of 9.5 + 0.75 = 10.25.

[tot_Ou_tard]

That last one makes total sense. Spectacular info blooz. Thanks.

One thing that confuses me about how the radius affects chording. It is claimed that the effect is most pronounced low on the neck (near the nut). Why would this be the case. It seems to me that it is primarily an issue with the ease of barre-ing.

Maybe a flatter neck drives one more toward a classical thumb-behind-the-neck posture, whereas a typical rock thumb-over-neck stance is more comfortable on rounder necks.

[Bloozcat]

That last one makes total sense. Spectacular info blooz. Thanks.

One thing that confuses me about how the radius affects chording. It is claimed that the effect is most pronounced low on the neck (near the nut). Why would this be the case. It seems to me that it is primarily an issue with the ease of barre-ing.

Maybe a flatter neck drives one more toward a classical thumb-behind-the-neck posture, whereas a typical rock thumb-over-neck stance is more comfortable on rounder necks.

I think it's because in a normal clenching action, the fingers of the hand naturally bend into a "C" like shape that follows a prounounced arc. This certainly makes barre chords easier to manipulate, but it also seems more comfortable with open chords as well...to a degree. In this regard, it's more ergomomic.

You're right about the thumb wrap posture, tot. I call this using my non-classical, "lazy" finger positioning. It's also one of the reasons why I like V-necks...they fit nicely in the web of the hand with this posture.

[tot_Ou_tard]

Yeah!

With open chords I'd grasp the neck just as you say with the neck in the web of my palm. But this collapses the fingers & crowds them on a flatter board.

I've been moving more toward a classical posture, but it's awkward at first.

When barre-ing you've got the neck grasped from the fretboard side with your entire index finger. With open chords you only have the slight pressure of the fretting fingers. Feels freaky--like you are on a tightrop--at first, but it becomes more comfortable with time & then chord changes are quicker and the fingers have more range of motion and can come straight down on the strings more fluently.

It also makes the difference between the fretting of barre chords and open chords less. I tend toward this approach anyway as I often fret open chords with my middle, ring, & pinky fingers, eg: D major, G major, C major, & A major. BTW, I really reccomend this latter strategy to beginners as it makes the transition between chords easier & reduces the barrier to barre chords.