Bridge radius flatter than neck radius = perfect

[luciguci]

I feel like this is the best part of the forum to post this, but if it's better elsewhere, please move it.

Anyways, I put a TOM on my VM Jaguar because I couldn't stand the cheap quality stock bridge and found that the bridge radius wasn't very different feeling at all. I decided to look more into it and found a couple items of interest.

First of all, I found a set of radius gauges from Pickguardian right here. I opened it in Photoshop and cut out the 9.5", 12", and 14" curves and placed the 12" over 9.5", 14" over 12" and 14" over 9.5".


9.5" and 12", 9.5" and 14", 12" and 14"

I found that a 9.5" radius bridge and a 12" radius bridge are not very different in curvature, as well as 14" and 12" being very similar as well. However, there was a noticable difference in 14" and 9.5", but I doubt it would be very noticable.

Secondly, I found this post on TDPRI where someone actually worked out the math and show how the bridge radius should be bigger than the neck radius.

Here's the visual explaination where the line by the tip of the cone would be the nut curved to the neck radius and the base is the bridge at a wider radius.


When I found this all out, I figured it made sense as to why I no longer had any fret buzz issues on the Jag.

Anyone else find this out?

[brainfur]

yep thats why warmoth offer a compound radius neck where its curved more at top for EZ cowboy chords and flat at the bridge for easier bl00z bendz

http://www.warmoth.com/Guitar/necks/radius.aspx

[George]

fixed radius bridges can never be perfect

[cur]

Fixed radius fret board is not conical.

[George]

Fixed radius fret board is not conical.

i think he's saying that because the nut is 9.5" and the bridge is 12", the strings are conical as a result, even though the fingerboard is not

i have a 12" tom and 9.5" radius on my bratocaster. the major drawback with them is that you can't get a nice gradual increase in action from the high E to the low E without sacrificing a few things, namely too low action at the D and G strings in my experience. and if you have the bridge set flat your high e is going to be too high or your low e is going to buzz. so the whole thing irks me and I'd rather have adjustable saddle height.

interestingly my shreddy jackson has fixed saddle height and 12" radius neck due to the floyd and doesn't have this problem and both e's can be set with very low action at the same height without buzz. i think the 9.5" radius just isn't suited to the job

[cur]

you can raise the saddle height on a jag bridge. and that is what you do if you get fret buzz (especially if you use wimpy strings). so other than not liking the jag bridge you are probably having the same set-up that you had before to prevent fret buzz.

[luciguci]

I also read somewhere (cannot confirm if true, however) that [some] 1950s Les Pauls had 9.5" radius fretboards with a 12" bridge straight out of the factory.

Also Cur, the Squier Jag bridge is what I have a problem with. I can't get along with it at all, especially since the saddle height screws are pretty crooked and fucked. As well, the intonation screws are too long on the low E and the G string (I don't use a wound 3rd) so if I raised the bridge any more than I had it, the screws would get in the way of the strings. Therefore, I opted for the TOM instead because it's not as complicated to get set up and it works just as well.

As well, using StewMac's diagrams, I have figured out that the TOM I put in my Jaguar sits just as high as the Wilkinson roller bridge would, so I'm going to buy that sometime in the future to replace the TOM.

[George]

it hasn't worked that way for me sadly

to get my top and low Es where i like them the middle strings (mainly the D) buzz. but i like to set my strings up slightly differently maybe.

edit: this was a reply to cur

[George]

I also read somewhere (cannot confirm if true, however) that [some] 1950s Les Pauls had 9.5" radius fretboards with a 12" bridge straight out of the factory.

Also Cur, the Squier Jag bridge is what I have a problem with. I can't get along with it at all, especially since the saddle height screws are pretty crooked and fucked. As well, the intonation screws are too long on the low E and the G string (I don't use a wound 3rd) so if I raised the bridge any more than I had it, the screws would get in the way of the strings. Therefore, I opted for the TOM instead because it's not as complicated to get set up and it works just as well.

As well, using StewMac's diagrams, I have figured out that the TOM I put in my Jaguar sits just as high as the Wilkinson roller bridge would, so I'm going to buy that sometime in the future to replace the TOM.

careful though with that wilkinson bridge. it does sit A LOT higher than the jaguar bridge and the standard TOM bridge I have, especially on account of the bridge posts which have thumbscrews underneath them which raises the whole bridge up even more.

[luciguci]

I also read somewhere (cannot confirm if true, however) that [some] 1950s Les Pauls had 9.5" radius fretboards with a 12" bridge straight out of the factory.

Also Cur, the Squier Jag bridge is what I have a problem with. I can't get along with it at all, especially since the saddle height screws are pretty crooked and fucked. As well, the intonation screws are too long on the low E and the G string (I don't use a wound 3rd) so if I raised the bridge any more than I had it, the screws would get in the way of the strings. Therefore, I opted for the TOM instead because it's not as complicated to get set up and it works just as well.

As well, using StewMac's diagrams, I have figured out that the TOM I put in my Jaguar sits just as high as the Wilkinson roller bridge would, so I'm going to buy that sometime in the future to replace the TOM.

careful though with that wilkinson bridge. it does sit A LOT higher than the jaguar bridge and the standard TOM bridge I have, especially on account of the bridge posts which have thumbscrews underneath them which raises the whole bridge up even more.

I know, I took that into account. I measured the bridge from where the bridge posts sit to the top of the two middle saddles and it was ~12 mm, just as the Wilkinson bridge is.

I guess the Epiphone TOM is much bigger than normal TOMs, because the saddles are much larger on this one than the standard ABR-1 or Nashville TOMs I saw on StewMac.

Here's the bridge on my Jag

► Show Spoiler

and here's the Nashville and ABR-1 bridges. Notice how the saddles are much lower in the diagrams than mine are

► Show Spoiler

► Show Spoiler

[George]

wow, looks like you're good to go then

what's the action like on the bottom and high e? i'm guessing it's quite high, or just higher than i'd accept

[cur]

it hasn't worked that way for me sadly

to get my top and low Es where i like them the middle strings (mainly the D) buzz. but i like to set my strings up slightly differently maybe.

edit: this was a reply to cur

You can adjust the height of the bridge and the height of the individual saddles. Get all of them to where they do not buzz (or however you like for your style of play). Of course I am assuming you do not have a high fret somewhere.

[George]

sorry, i mean with fixed radius tune o matics, not jaguar bridges.

[luciguci]

Probably higher than you'd accept, but I have no issue with it. I like my Jaguar to kinda fight a little, and my Strat to be my go-to easy guitar when my fingers hurt from playing with the Jag.

Here's the action on the low E unfretted, but this isn't really the best indicative picture.