# 9-string Acoustic Done (hopefully) Well



## TheOnlyKtulu (Nov 30, 2019)

I'm in the process of designing, together with a veteran luthier here in Romania, a 9-string acoustic ERG guitar for me.

And I'm not talking the likes of this one (already existing). I'm sure we can all agree on the flaws it has.

Instead, although he first disagreed with my take on this, it's gonna be a 30" scale, NON-fanned (cause let's be honest, barrés are a bitch on that fretboard type, at least for me), and with body bout-roundings styles taken from harp-guitars.

It's all meant to be aimed at getting the best sound possible, especially from the lows.
Adjustable bridge, and I'll also try to convince him to design a compensated bone nut.
He also came up with the idea of mounting a Fishman.

I then came up with the idea of putting it up on Reverb when it's done. Cause if such a guitar would sell, then he'd be doing another one.
Now... I'm not asking how much you'd throw in, for something like this to be yours... But I am however curious if you'd be interested in such a project.
So, I'd like to know. Just to make myself an idea. Thanks!

FYI, I'm already years now into Reverb with my personal gear, but recently also with some of his (he's 60 and not willing to make an account for himself, lol).
I can tell you, his stuff is a beast, at least the looks and the wood.
If you wanna know more, just pm me.


----------



## spudmunkey (Nov 30, 2019)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> it's gonna be a 30" scale, NON-fanned (cause let's be honest, barrés are a bitch on that fretboard type, at least for me)



Have you thought about, with multiscale, moving the parallel fret to lower down the fretboard, or even the nut? That would make bar chords feel identical to the straight scale, but then you could still do multiscale to shorten the higher strings. I feel like any length you could take out of those higher strings would be worth it.

Like, still a 1.5" fan, but it would all be taken from the bridge end, with a parallel nut.

That said, please consider all of he above as just an idea from someone who's never owned an extended scale guitar, and never even played a guitar longer than 28" except for basses.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Nov 30, 2019)

spudmunkey said:


> moving the parallel fret to lower down the fretboard


 ?? How's that?
Edit: aaahh, I think I get it. But then I think you meant to write "the parallel frets", as in plural, right?
Yup, that's the "bitch" part of having fanned. Whoever thought of us guitarists being able to barré the hell out of those, with an even more painfully rotated wrist, is a retard.
But, to answer you... Yeah, I could do that. Except I'm so damn used to regular frets and their appearance and positionings to my eyes, I'm having a hard time to accept it.
You see... I'm also gonna do some soloing, and to be honest, going up the board and meeting somewhat twisted frets, isn't at all appealing to me either.

Anyway, question: why would I want to shorten the higher strings? A .007 can easily and even a .008 can take a 30".


----------



## spudmunkey (Nov 30, 2019)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> ?? How's that?



Two things effect the angles of the frets: the scale lengths, and the neutral fret location.

OK, so let's say you have a 2" scale difference: 28-30".

If your parellel fret is in the middle, the 12th fret, that means that both the nut and the bridge will be angled by 1/2 of that fan. So the bridge will be angled 1" and the nut will be angled 1". Now...while that might sound logical, playing on those lower frets when the nut is angled is a little bit tricky for some, so most guitar companies bring their neutral fret down a bit to the 9th fret. This means that the angle of the nut is reduced...but to still hit that same 2" fan, the bridge is angled more to make up for it.

To go the other way, you could actually make a multiscale guitar with any trem you want...if you make the bridge the neutral location. The downside is that your nut, then, would have to take up all of the angle. This is why most Strandbers with trems only have, like, 3/4" fan. If you kept the nut at the same angle but moved the neutral/parallel location to the 12th fret, you'd end up with an overall 1.5" scale fan, but then your bridge would be angled.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 30, 2019)

Yeah, I wouldn't be interested at all in a straight fret 9 string acoustic. Throw a little fan on there, like spud is saying, and I'm interested. IDK what I'd pay though, because this is in the experimental/fun category for me. But, the cooler it looks, and the more unique, the more I'd be likely to grab it. A regular looking acoustic probably wouldn't do much for me, in terms of looks.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Nov 30, 2019)

Nope, everybody chill on the fanned thing, lol.
First of all I'd probably be putting him into cardiac arrest, haha. If not, then at least he'd be doubling the cost of the neck. Just think about the fact that he has to individually measure the necessary distances, for each string alone. That's one thing I'd avoid, right?
So, at least for me, balancing comfort/cost is ideal in this case.
That said, I'll talk to him about it and what it'd actually cost extra. IF ANY, cause honestly, he told me that the most painful thing isn't the neck or the fret job so much, but making the body. He's focused so far on electrics. He has the tools for acustics though, but it's been ages since he's done the last one.


----------



## spudmunkey (Nov 30, 2019)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> Nope, everybody chill on the fanned thing, lol.
> First of all I'd probably be putting him into cardiac arrest, haha. If not, then at least he'd be doubling the cost of the neck. Just think about the fact that he has to individually measure the necessary distances, for each string alone. That's one thing I'd avoid, right?



No, just the ends of each fret. You don't need to measure each string. There are calculators out there. You put in the scale lengths, what you want the neutral/parallel fret to be, the nut width and bridge width, and it'll give you dimensions.
http://www.ekips.org/tools/guitar/fretfind2d/



TheOnlyKtulu said:


> So, at least for me, balancing comfort/cost is ideal in this case.



A valid consideration.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 30, 2019)

spudmunkey said:


> Have you thought about, with multiscale, moving the parallel fret to lower down the fretboard, or even the nut? That would make bar chords feel identical to the straight scale, but then you could still do multiscale to shorten the higher strings. I feel like any length you could take out of those higher strings would be worth it.
> 
> Like, still a 1.5" fan, but it would all be taken from the bridge end, with a parallel nut.
> 
> That said, please consider all of he above as just an idea from someone who's never owned an extended scale guitar, and never even played a guitar longer than 28" except for basses.



_Perpendicular_ fret.


----------



## spudmunkey (Nov 30, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> _Perpendicular_ fret.


 Technically correct, the best kind of correct. I was just using the industry-norm vernacular...which is so often incorrect in the guitar world.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Nov 30, 2019)

spudmunkey said:


> No, and it'll give you dimensions.
> http://www.ekips.org/tools/guitar/fretfind2d/



Now I'm starting to think more and more that this is a good idea, especially when it comes to being able to choose exactly which fret to lay perpendicular... And soloing isn't done to much extent, not up that high anyway. So, I guess I wouldn't mind when from time to time I'm adventuring myself there and to my eyes they appear a little tilted. To the player they appear tilted anyway, because of the position he's holding the guitar (a little slanted), right?
In the end, a somewhat even string ringing/sound/tone has got to win the case. Because if there's gonna be 30" all over the place, then it's all gonna sound treble-ish again on a whole, when in fact the sole purpose of having a longer scale for the ERGs was to make those lower ends ring!
Now I only have to start convincing the guy of the fact that I need it this way...

So I guess... Thanks Spuds?


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Dec 1, 2019)

In all honesty, and mind you I am not a 9/10 string player, but having owned a 30” scale neck 8 string ..... I will simply say I think spud has the only solution

A 9 string acoustic with 30” scale and standard fretboard sounds like a terrible idea...simply awful

but if you multiscale or fan fret the neck it would be a much better experiment, this time: listen to spudmonkey


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 1, 2019)

Okay, I said I'll think about it and tell the luthier.
But nevertheless I don't support the idea of a non-fanned fretboard on a 30 being awful.
I haven't seen any debate honestly as to the pros and cons of neither. So far, it just seems to be a mass hysteria (I speak only for the electrics), just like with the Gibson neck tenon. I have my own pros and cons, and simply put: fanned has the sound, but non-fanned has the comfort. Sound is most of the times solved by electronics.
However when it comes to acustics, I also tend (since yesterday evening) to go with fanned, lol. Simply because I'll probably play it 90% unplugged, so sound comes first.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Dec 1, 2019)

If he can do it, great
If not I wish you a successful build and you enjoy it when it is finished 
I didn’t mean to sound negative, I meant i would hate to see you regret the accessibility and playability after you put time and money into it

either way good luck


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 1, 2019)

I'm against fanned precisely because of the playability & accessibility. But in this case sound & tone wins over that, so that's why in the end I'm hoping he'll also go for a fanned.
But if not, there'll be indeed a loss in sound quality, yet a big gain on the other part.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Dec 1, 2019)

Function first, form after....I dont like FF/multi scale myself personally, but after my ERG experiment, i wouldnt get another 8+ string unless I got it in a 25.5”-29.5” fan

Spuds right, its more important to play it and sound well., than the looks, and the playability will be easier for you......and actually it would probably look cooler on an acoustic !


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 1, 2019)

Nope, playability will definitely not be easier.
You can't possibly think that, compared to a normal fretboard where barré-ing means you'll need to somewhat rotate your wrist, barré-ing on a fanned fret is gonna be easier. You can't possibly think that. It's counterintuitive.
I admit I haven't tried one!
But I'm also able to get the logic out of it.
And unless you're gonna hold the guitar on your lap concert-like or classical-like (which no way in hell I'm gonna do it, it just looks out of context, but that's just me), well it'll only hurt the shit out of your hands.
THAT'S why Spud was right to specify the fact that I'd better choose the perpendicular fret much closer to the nut.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Dec 1, 2019)

Have you EVER played a multiscale my Timisoaran friend? NO.

Are you asking EXPERTS advice on how to proceed with your ERG? YES

Are you listening to the answers you asked for? NO

So......where does that leave us:

- it is absurd to think of this experiment
- it is absurd to assume when you didnt try it that its harder to play
- it is absurd to negate every single person’s advice

I think you are a cool dude, you seem like a nice guy, a very type A personality, but still, a very respectful person. 

I’m not calling you out on your shit

I’m just trying to maybe bring some awareness to your own OP and your objective: to make a playable and sonically pleasing 9 string acoustic

I dont always agree with spud monkey, and he often has totally different views on things....so with that said, and especially in this case, from the people who know, where you came to ask them.....keep all this in mind

I know you are resisting the multi scale, but honestly dude, if you are crazy enough to commission a 9 string acoustic with a 30” neck, you should have the balls to do it right = with fanned frets.

I hope it is taken as friendly advice, and not as any insult or anything offensive...like i told you:id hate for you to end up hating your acoustic because a 30” scale with 9 strings just SHOULD not be allowed to exist lol


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 1, 2019)

Nope, wasn't asking any expert...
Despite that, just how is this & this (both attached) NOT listening to what you guys were saying?  I'm curious
Nevertheless, I'm deeply thankful, cause it made me think sonically... Which is more important.
... Only in this particular case 
(Oh, now I really have to google what's a type A personality, lol)


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Dec 1, 2019)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> Nope, wasn't asking any expert...
> Despite that, just how is this & this (both attached) NOT listening to what you guys were saying?  I'm curious
> Nevertheless, I'm deeply thankful, cause it made me think sonically... Which is more important.
> ... Only in this particular case
> (Oh, now I really have to google what's a type A personality, lol)


Yes you are dude. I’m not the expert here. But there are literally dozens, maybe hundreds of members on here, that can help. Spud is obviously one of them, and he is right.....SO STOP IT (Arnold Schwarzenegger ) lol lol jk

Just make sure you’re totally happy with the sketches before he starts chopping up that wood bro

And really good luck with it, i look forward to seeing

You are nuts duder, lol nuts.... i love this guy!!!


----------



## ixlramp (Dec 1, 2019)

I find the 'necessity' of fanned frets is exaggerated on this forum.

30" for the top E4 is practical, it has slightly less tension than D4 on 34", which i am currently using and liking (really good tone).
It is near the practical limit so you will not be able to bend it, but bending can be done on the next string down.
Certainly some will not like that and prefer a low tension top E they can bend like crazy, but that is more of an electric guitar thing and a personal preference. Acoustic guitars tend to have higher tension strings.

The low C#1 on 30" will be somewhat of a compromise, it may need to be quite a low tension string to avoid the stiffness and poor tone of a large gauge.
I think the scale choice consideration should be about extending the lowest string above 30", which is needed far more than shortening the highest string (which is technically unnecessary).

About barre chords ... if the perpendicular fret is near or even at the nut, the wrist will not be rotated the bad way. If the fan is not extreme, and considering that acoustics do not have lots of frets, the fret angle near the highest frets will not be much. I do not think it will be much more difficult to play barre chords.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Dec 1, 2019)

ixlramp said:


> I find the 'necessity' of fanned frets is exaggerated on this forum.
> 
> 30" for the top E4 is practical, it has slightly less tension than D4 on 34", which i am currently using and liking (really good tone).
> It is near the practical limit so you will not be able to bend it, but bending can be done on the next string down.
> ...


Your totally right: it is exaggerated on this forum, definitely.

However, in this case, its not a good idea; its essential

For those who dont know, I’m not a FF fan, and I totally support spud!


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 1, 2019)

ixlramp said:


> I find the 'necessity' of fanned frets is exaggerated on this forum.



"The truth is out there", lol.
On a serious note, I've been turned, man... There's nothing much to be done  , but accept the fact that I now also see its necessity.
And yeah, acustics tend to be fitted with higher gauges. It's about having stronger projection. You're not being amplified, so you need to be heard.
BUT on acustics, higher strings always tend to reach out a little more. You gotta counter that with scale differentiation, there's no other way. Cause if you do same scale, then you're back to square one.
However, I won't commission it longer than 30", because of my somewhat small hands.
Btw, I'll be doing:
B(0)F#(1)B(1)EADF#BE -> even though it's currently being studied, as to what barré-ing can actually bring. Which at least currently, I think it's plenty.
So there you go, even lower than C(0). That really needs to get projected! Even the F#(1) needs that.
.100 for the B(0) on the Ibanez 28" is slinky, but I think on a 30" will do well.


----------



## Winspear (Dec 2, 2019)

I'd recommend 30-28 to be conservative, which is really imperceptible in terms of angles when spread across 9 strings. I'd expect a 110 to make a usable B on 30" - might still be quite noisy (I used a 118 on 30" electric and found it just right - it's pretty in line with regular acoustic guitar tension)


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 2, 2019)

Yup, thinking about 28-30 myself aswell, just the regular milf of a scale, lol!
Yeah... No, .100 had been ok on my 28" RG9 as a C#(1), but just this weekend I moved to that particular tuning, after reading Hollowway's post. Now I have to order custom strings again...


----------



## Winspear (Dec 2, 2019)

Yeah that's understandable, just people tend to prefer strings around 15% thicker on acoustic than what they use on electric, and in my experience it's even more important for tuning lower


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 3, 2019)

And the best part anyway will be the fact that, I don't know if you've probably noticed it on the 9-stringers, the saddle for the lowest string gets to be pulled way back, for optimal intonation. Like, it doesn't even need any spring, cause it gets in the way.
This means that, right now on my RG9, the lowest has a [real] scale of 28.5". This means further, that I'm gonna have at least a [real] 30.5-28.0
And it helps to know that, because I always like to have even tension across the strings on my guitars. It also prevents other not wished for problems in time.
And this way, according to stringtensionpro.com, I'll know which string gauges to use.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 5, 2019)

Looking good though so far with the votes, at 50/50.
In my opinion, it would look good aswell at 25/75 
Luthier said he'll do it. Starting with the neck in the coming weeks. I'll pay him upfront for that first.
Just a heads-up, it won't have a cut-out, but the body line will still be at the 15th or 16th fret.
Nevertheless, he says the human ear can't hear the difference between the 2 types of frets, especially when it comes to electrics. 
Acoustics however are a different story.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 9, 2019)

Another question.
Since I've just been reading about soundholes' placement, what do you think, should there be an offset soundhole or a normal one?
Or both, but also having screw-in covers, so that I can choose which one to use depending on occasions?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Dec 9, 2019)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> Another question.
> Since I've just been reading about soundholes' placement, what do you think, should there be an offset soundhole or a normal one?
> Or both, but also having screw-in covers, so that I can choose which one to use depending on occasions?



I haven't ever noticed a huge difference as far as live sound, and it's usually more of a hinderance in that scenario due to noise/feedback, to have multiple sound holes.

I also think having just an offset one makes things too boomy, but that's going to depend on the tone you want. 

I do really like the side mounted sound hole on my Bartolex though, but only so far as hearing myself when playing.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 9, 2019)

Well I've read about amateur microfonists saying that they never record with the microphone placed at the soundhole level. Instead, they place it at the lower bout or one of the 2 upper bouts.
Anyway, somewhere towards the end of the instrument. Because, and this is another thing that I have personally studied/read about at one point in my infant years, in a room sound always tends to focus towards the corners.
That's why there were "acousticians" even in the ancient times. They used to study this phenomenon, and it only helped spies, who in order to better hear what it was spoken in the room/hall, always placed themselves in one of its corners.


----------



## jack_cat (Dec 12, 2019)

Hi - very interesting project. My own project, a 9-string fanned classical, and the similar 9-string electric nylon of Winspeare, are somewhat similar in concept, and although your idea is indeed a little different, our various differences probably must partly converge due to practical limits on design. 

I built my prototype 9-st FF classical in 2013. The specifications were a total crapshoot. I had asked for and received advice on this forum and on Delcamp; the most useful info was given here. Now listen please, this is the most important thing I can say:

To the extent that I second-guessed the advice I received here, my prototype had errors that had to be corrected in the next build. You can check the long thread lasting several years, entitled "9 string classical - will it fly?" or something like that. I will list below the errors that I made on the first build. I should say that the first build was a very valuable learning experience, but expensive. Perhaps this cannot be avoided. I spent the equivalent of about 2K US dollars on the first build, and the equivalent of about 3K USD on the second build (which I call 85% successful), and so, I recommend really considering all of the advice that has been given, which may save the first build from being an expensive white elephant as mine is. I don't play it, and it is as matters stand unplayable until further work on it, but I play the second build exclusively now, 7 gigs a week currently. 

Because my tuning is F#1 - B1 - E2 - A2 - D3 - G3 - B3 - E4 - A4, and you are shooting for the next register lower, and also because I use nylon strings and you will use steel, of course my specs are no good for you. All the same, the determination of the specs involves the same guesswork.

The bronze-on-nlyon F#1 on my prototype was 68c = 26.7". This was too short. The F#1 on my second build is 72c = 28.3", and I use a .074 string. This is not too bad, but it is clear that it would sound BETTER at, say 75c = 29.5". This is about what you are proposing for a steel string TUNED A FIFTH LOWER. You might re-think this, in my opinion, and somewhere on this forum I believe there is a thread called the "zero octave club", and I do recommend searching that up and reading everything on it. My opinion is that a string length of about 35" would give much better results. The issue that arose with the too-short-and-too-thick F#1 on my first build was that the string clicked on the frets. You can't know how annoying this is until you experience it.


----------



## jack_cat (Dec 12, 2019)

The second major error was to put the perpendicular fret at fret 5. Both builds have a 12c = 4.7" fan. With a smaller fan, you can put the perpendicular fret farther up the neck. I sit in the classical position. To bar on the 1st fret of the first build (perp fret #5) torqued my left elbow backwards. On the 2nd build I put the perpendicular fret at #3, and this is far more satisfactory, and I have no difficulty with the standard 1st position F major bar. 

The 1st build had the soundhole centered. Due to the angle of the bridge, the treble end of the bridge was too close to the transverse bar, and the A4 didn't sing. On the 2nd build I offset the soundhole. The A4 sings beautifully but another problem was caused: Because the bridge is floating in the middle of a lattice braced top, it goes up and down when I change the string tension. I was experimenting with string tension for at least a year, and I made a half-dozen different saddles during this time. However, this top sounds really nice, and now that I have the intonation and string tension issues solved, I am getting along fine, but I had a LOT of trouble getting the action and intonation set.

My luthier put narrow saddles in both builds, less than 2mm. Unfortunately, the G string needs about 2mm of compensation, so on the second build, I myself hogged out the saddle slot with a razor blade and put a 4mm wide saddle in so that I could compensate every string as necessary. I also found it necessary to shorten the G3 and B3 strings at the nut in order to get first position chords in better tune. As matters stand, my compensation job is still imperfect, but the intonation is far better than it was uncompensated.

I used to play on hard tension strings for volume. On my 9 string, I was forced to move to the lightest tension strings I could stand, and to change my playing style, because my left hand bar muscle just flat out failed with what I had considered to be normal tension, around 15 pounds or seven kilos. I haven't calculated it out, but I think I'm at about 12 pounds string tension.


----------



## jack_cat (Dec 12, 2019)

In Paracho, I have seen and played a number of experimental designs with soundholes in weird positions, and my conclusion is that the total size (area) of the soundhole(s) is probably more important than the location: all that's important is that the air in the box can move, and that the size of the hole(s) is proportionate to the volume of the box, and somewhere there is a formula for this proportion of soundhole area to volume of box. Several people who looked at my drawings with the offset soundhole (the F#1 goes across the middle of the hole) said, the trebles are never going to sing. However, the strings transmit their vibration to the top through the bridge and not through the soundhole, and the trebles sing very nicely on my 2nd build. I also have a Ruck-style hole in the upper bout, I like this. 

I have made many, many detailed scale drawings of possible different configurations of my design, and I also took the useful advice given here on 7-st-org, to paste cut-out drawings onto cardboard mockups and pretend to play them to try to get a feel for how they might work. 

Another very serious error I made on the first build was to make the neck too narrow. I was very afraid of the neck being "too wide" but this was a total delusion. On the first build the neck was 68mm = 2.7" wide, with the strings spaced about 7.5 mm; I thought that I could play on this based on my buddy's Gibson, but I was wrong. The bass strings are so thick as to demand a wider spacing, and a wider space between strings is also useful because of the different angle of the LH fingers approaching the strings on a wide neck. The 2nd build has an 80mm wide neck, for the same tuning and number of strings, and the spacing is 9mm, with 11mm at the bridge, and a 4mm margin on the sides instead of the usual 2mm.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 12, 2019)

A very much appreciated Intervention indeed!
Some amendments though.


jack_cat said:


> you are shooting for the next register lower, [...] You might re-think this [...] My opinion is that a string length of about 35" would give much better results.


I'm taking second guesses based on my RG9, where I know for a fact that the lowest string (in tuning theory C#, but alas it'll be a B) has a real 28.5" instead of the advertised 28".
So I extrapolated that on the theoretical 30", and I'm thinking it'll be more of a 31".
Not gonna go for 35", as I'm planning up-front a not so much of an angled fanned-fret (just a 2" difference).
Were it to be a 32" or 33"-35", then I'd be losing the occasion & ability to sometimes bend.
I really want to be able to balance everything out 



jack_cat said:


> The second major error was to put the perpendicular fret at fret 5. Both builds have a 12c = 4.7" fan. With a smaller fan, you can put the perpendicular fret farther up the neck. [...]. To bar on the 1st fret of the first build (perp fret #5) torqued my left elbow backwards. On the 2nd build I put the perpendicular fret at #3, and this is far more satisfactory.


Can't really tell if you're arguing yourself here (put it farther UP the neck? Where?), or seconding my choice of placing it at the 4th or 5th fret. Cause that's what I wanna do. I really don't need to put my barré to such fatigue of torquing my wrist.

The bridge...
Well first of all it'll be a tail piece, continued with a floating bridge, BUT it will be an attached one. AND it'll also be wide enough, as to convey enough rigidity not to waive in the process of tuning.
And anyway, if the luthier decides that type of bridge isn't good (it's been my choice anyway, lol), he said that another solution would be individual bridges, just like on bass guitars.



jack_cat said:


> my conclusion is that the total size (area) of the soundhole(s) is probably more important than the location: all that's important is that the air in the box can move


Well then I guess you'll love my idea of having a top hole (normal one, however scaled up if necessary), PLUS another one on the top side.



jack_cat said:


> Another serious error I made on the first build was to make the neck too narrow.


My take on this is to have the neck based on my Ibanez RG9 pattern.
Luthier also said that what I've accustomed to, should be the one used & played.


----------



## jack_cat (Dec 16, 2019)

On the neck width, I agree that you should go with the string spacing that you are used to, whatever it may be, and that the neck width should be a multiple of that space plus however much you like at the edges so that you don't push the outer strings over the edge of the fingerboard. I like 4 mm at both edges, but that's on a classical-style nylon-string.

I applaud the idea of separate bridges for each string. It has most definitely been on my mind that a major improvement in my own design would be individually moveable pieces for each string at both the bridge and the nut. It took me about two years to get mine compensated, because it is a complicated and tedious job for me, maybe somebody else could do this quicker (and my compensations are not yet perfect), but it would go far more quickly with some system in which each string-bearing point of both bridge and saddle would be an individual piece of bone or ivory sliding in a little mortise so that the intonation could be adjusted at both ends with a little tap with a hammer and punch without perhaps even loosening the strings; then, once satisfied with the intonation and action, a little drop of cyanoacrylate or maybe fish glue would fix it in place, but not so that it couldn't be popped loose again if required. I have not yet made any drawings of this idea.

Because my own design is experimental, and potentially an ongoing experiment, it may sound like I only complain about it in reading my posts. Although my first build was ultimately frustrating and disappointing, the second build is a really beautiful and successful instrument, and now that I have sort of recovered (after almost four years!) from the intense emotional stress of the whole process of having something built which was potentially an expensive failure, I can sometimes step back and appreciate the beauty and utility of the result. I don't play any other instrument these days, and I gig with it full time.


----------



## jack_cat (Dec 16, 2019)

Regarding the placement of the right-angle fret: I'm sorry if what I wrote was unclear. On fanned-fret guitars with minimal fans, like the 8-string "Brahms-Guitar" classical-type model which has less than 2" difference in the string lengths, they put the right angle fret up the neck farther (meaning, away from the nut and toward the saddle) at fret 8. Because the angles of nut and saddle are both much less than on my 9-string, no issue arises with the difficulty of barring at the first fret. Since you say that you are only planning a minimal fan, it seems that you might put the RA fret farther up the neck, or anywhere you want, without the nut angle being an issue. It is only with the more extreme fan of my design that this is a problem, I believe.

I was certainly handicapped by the fact that, before my first build, I had never had a fanned-fret guitar even in my hands. If I had been able to play a few, I might have had useful info. My first build was therefore a crapshoot, but actually having one built was the only way I knew to get the information, because flying around the world looking at guitars wasn't an option.

I found one similar extreme fanned-fret classical-type design which had been built years ago for a guy named Fred something who has since disappeared; he had one You-tube video. This was a 10-string with the shortest treble string at 54c = 21.3" and the longest at 68c = 26.7", and he had put the right angle fret at fret 12, so that the angles of nut and saddle were the same. Of course, I never had my hands on it, but I'm sure that it was very difficult to play in first position.


----------



## LordCashew (Dec 16, 2019)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> ...You're not being amplified, so you need to be heard.
> 
> BUT on acustics, higher strings always tend to reach out a little more. You gotta counter that with scale differentiation, there's no other way...
> 
> ...



I think you're right about scale differentiation. You might also want to consider a very large body size for such an extended low end. Bass players frequently complain that acoustic bass guitars (tuned to E1 at 34") can't keep up with other instruments in volume. Some even argue that the body volume of a standard upright bass (which also has a ~42" scale length) is insufficient to project B0.

Obviously those instruments have different tonal goals than an acoustic guitar. But if you're really not going to be amplified, it's going to be quite a task to get a B0 that will sound like much more than clicking and overtones when played hard, let alone be able to keep up with the "normal guitar" strings. Plugging it in would make all of that much easier.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 24, 2019)

I think it's gonna be at least half an inch thicker.
Oh, and it's not gonna be a classical (nylon), but a normal Dreadnaught or a Jumbo, but nevertheless a steel-stringed.
Btw, it's on guys!


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 26, 2019)

I'm curious though about that "clicking" phenomenon you had been writing about, when it comes to the highest gauge [lowest string - C#(1)or in my case B(0)].
You referred to the fact that if the gauge was higher, a clicking would appear, or what?
Alright, but what are the instances, to be more specific? You meant, like, when you'd hit "hammer-on" or simply when scaling/arpeggiating?
Or this oughta be because of the strings being too close or too far from the frets?


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jan 4, 2020)

Keep it going, poll's getting better and better


----------



## c7spheres (Jan 4, 2020)

If I had a lot of money I'd buy one to have just hanging around to mess around with. It's to much for me to handle 9 strings realistically without some ability lacking but it sure looks fun. : )


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jan 5, 2020)

You made the right guess, lol. The hidden objective is to make many more, if someone else wants one aswell.
But I for one, really want one like that, cause I've just discovered certain barrés on my electric 9-stringer, that I think would sound just superb on an acoustic.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jan 17, 2020)

Ongoing


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Feb 4, 2020)

Woods have been prepared: Swamp-Ash for body & Swamp-Ash/Wenge/Mahogany for neck (with 2 truss rods)


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Mar 17, 2020)

Drawing ready


----------



## Winspear (Mar 17, 2020)

That looks pretty killer! But what's with the upsidown frets? Do you play strung upsidown?


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Mar 17, 2020)

No, he just didn't pay attention to that at this point, it was just for getting the total dimensions, for fitting in the hard case I sent him


----------



## olejason (Mar 17, 2020)

Are you using ash for the top as well? That would be a pretty unusual choice but might be cool


----------



## spudmunkey (Mar 17, 2020)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> No, he just didn't pay attention to that at this point, it was just for getting the total dimensions, for fitting in the hard case I sent him



That's...weird. So either he somehow absent-midedly found a CAD for a left-handed neck and used that, or designed a left-handed neck by accident. Deeefinitely triple confirm that these drawings are being immediately deleted/burned.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Mar 17, 2020)

olejason said:


> Are you using ash for the top as well?


Yeah, he's come across a big sheet of Ash, and so he'd like to do a 1-piece back & a 1-piece top.



spudmunkey said:


> Deeefinitely triple confirm that these drawings are being immediately deleted/burned.


Well he thanked me because I, quote, "reminded [him] about it", hahaha!

And just to clarify: it won't be swamp-ash, it will be ash. He specifically told me not to mix it up.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Apr 18, 2020)

There you go.
2 truss rods, like promised.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (May 10, 2020)

Eagerly waiting...


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 22, 2020)

Neck's almost ready


----------



## Strtsmthng (Aug 22, 2020)

Cool project! What material is the fretboard?


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 22, 2020)

Hi, it's Bubinga


----------



## Strtsmthng (Aug 22, 2020)

Thanks! That I wouldn't have guessed


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Dec 15, 2020)

Ongoing...


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Feb 2, 2021)

We're almost there...


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (May 22, 2021)

Final adjustments coming up...
Well what can I say, it took him really long, but more likely because of the fact that he's an actual working luthier, so he's doing many more tasks at a time.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (May 22, 2021)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> ... took him really long, but more likely because of the fact that he's an actual working luthier...


 and also cause he fuhkin' cut one of his thumbs in about 2 pieces in the meantime, so he had been incapacitated for about 2 months!


----------



## Spicypickles (May 23, 2021)

That looks great! Nut looks like it needs a small amount of attention though.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (May 24, 2021)

Yeah, he didn't have bone material at that point and he wanted to make it playable, to see what's next.
Notice how misaligned the strings are? I went nuts, thought he had glued the bridge, but turns out I'm stupid, especially having already had 2 archtops so far, lol.
So what he did was to put a temporary wood nut instead. And now he's asked me if I want white bone or black. Told him: whatever you think looks great on it.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (May 24, 2021)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> and also cause he fuhkin' cut one of his thumbs in about 2 pieces in the meantime, so he had been incapacitated for about 2 months!



Cherry on top: for the CNC part on the bodies he's worked with a guy, who actually f'ed it up the first time on this acoustic (apart from the fact that the dude put it on queue - another month or so - because it was right after the lockdown!!), so my guy had to find another CNC, took about 2 months aswell until he found one...
So, about half a year of nothingness.
That is, if you had been wondering last year what was going on, which I'm sure you did, cause I hadn't updated you guys.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 5, 2021)

Ok guys, I'm getting it on Monday. Gonna accommodate with it before making you a clip. But I'll surely make some fine photos for you gentlemen.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 7, 2021)

1


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 7, 2021)

2


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 7, 2021)

3


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 7, 2021)

And sorry about the cropping, they were too big.

Bottom line: I'M THRILLED


----------



## lurè (Jun 7, 2021)

Very nice instrument.

That low C# on the nut be like:


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 7, 2021)

And it's actually gonna be B0


----------



## Thrashman (Jun 11, 2021)

Was the static string spacing an active choice? Seems you'd have room to fan it out towards the bridge more traditionally to allow hat low B0 to breathe!


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 12, 2021)

I don't quite understand that, what's a static string spacing?
And about the fanning thing, I didn't want to do that, cause then the frets would have gotten too slanted. Or maybe not, if it were a 31". But the high E is a 28" and that's just about enough. I considered that a 2" difference would be ok, so I wouldn't mix up the frets while playing, when I'm looking at them, and for that matter when I'm NOT looking at them 
BUT, if anyone wants one too, he'd build it according to their appointments/choices.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jun 18, 2021)

Alright, so the real multiscale, after intonating it to the best of my ability, is 28⅐-30½ inches (or 715-775 mm).
Sound is mid-range concentrated.
The ultra-deep B0 sounds way better than just a 'click', though acoustic bass players will still be complaining, I can bet on it.
I bought a shitty pickup system for it, the inner 'capsule' of the jack does not hold the plug well enough, so it'll work with intermittence, but if I don't move around, it will work. But the inside sensors/patches do resolve a faithful translation of the guitar's natural sound, though I always have to turn up the amp almost a ½ step.
Maybe I'll go with Fishman, but there's yet to exist a system for a 9-stringer.
I'm happy with the guitar, it's his first and in my opinion it's a success.
I'll be uploading some tunes either this weekend or the next one.
Thanks for following me!

And oh, it's a little over 4 kg, or 9 lbs heavy! Must be the Ash! Lol


----------



## Thrashman (Jul 3, 2021)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> I don't quite understand that, what's a static string spacing?
> And about the fanning thing, I didn't want to do that, cause then the frets would have gotten too slanted. Or maybe not, if it were a 31". But the high E is a 28" and that's just about enough. I considered that a 2" difference would be ok, so I wouldn't mix up the frets while playing, when I'm looking at them, and for that matter when I'm NOT looking at them
> BUT, if anyone wants one too, he'd build it according to their appointments/choices.


String spacing on guitars and basses is always more narrow at the nut than at the bridge / on your guitar it seems to be the same on both ends.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Jul 3, 2021)

Thrashman said:


> on your guitar it seems to be the same on both ends.


Yeah... Which is not, lol. I'll measure it for ya. It's probably bad photography perspectives.


----------



## jack_cat (Aug 3, 2021)

Many congratulations on pushing this idea through. 
I am somewhat, but not entirely, envious of your adjustable saddles. 
I have been thinking about how to implement this idea. 
Yours is one possible solution, and I have not yet thought up a workable one myself.
I have a single bone in which I have filed notches.

So please tell me: do you have enough adjustment?
The reason that I ask: it appears that there are discrete
notches for the saddles, and that they are adjustable only by discrete intervals 
- (whatever interval that is: how far apart are those little notches anyway?)

whereas, I have assumed that it would be essential to have an infinite 
sliding adjustment. So please give us a report on setting the intonation, thanks.

Again, many congratulations. It probably won't be the last one you have built!
all the best - jack


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 3, 2021)

@Thrashman , hey I'm so sorry, I forgot to measure.
So, from high E to low B0: bridge - 78mm, nut - 50mm

Hey Jack,
(btw, where are you located exactly? Thanks)
Thank you for the kind words!
Although it's not me the one who's built it. But half of the ideas were mine (of course half of THOSE were courtesy of the fine gentlemen here on SevenString).
So:
"Yours is one possible solution" ..."assumed that it would be essential to have an infinite sliding adjustment" -> Yeah, well I was thinking it should have the biggest amount of wood built in the guitar; sliders would also account for some extra hardware, apart from the sliders themselves. So in fact yeah, the floating bridge is made of wood (he does not remember however, hahaha, what wood it is!).
"how far apart are those little notches anyway?" -> about 4mm
"won't be the last one you have built" -> that's for sure! I wanna sell it, thus help him make a name of himself, then I'll order another one.

"please give us a report on setting the intonation" -> what do you mean exactly? Do you want to know each step on how I'm doing intonation? Or would you like to know for example what the pitch distance (final intonation scale) on each string is?


----------



## bostjan (Aug 3, 2021)

I like that saddle idea. Do you think it'd be possible to make those slots any closer together to get a finer adjustment?


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 3, 2021)

I thought I would need that too, but after shifting to a different slot, I found I'm almost to pitch. But you could always add one in between, with a flat-head screwdriver & a hammer. But the thing is... I'm starting to think the longer the scale, the bigger the needed intervals.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 4, 2021)

@jack_cat , replied to you before bostjan, forgot to tag you, sorry!


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 4, 2021)

Some more


----------



## jack_cat (Aug 10, 2021)

Yes, on the subject of the spacing of the adjustment intervals of the saddle, the reason that I ask is that
I have been working with a multi-scale from 60 c to 72 c, and the adjustments that I have made by filing notches in the saddle are 2 mm or less, and these fine adjustments are indeed significant in adjusting the intonation of each string at the 12th fret. Therefore, from my own experience, I would expect that incremental adjustments of 4 mm would not be fine enough for the kind of tuning accuracy that I myself would like to achieve on my own instruments, a challenge I am still working with. This is why I ask if you have noticed any problem in attaining an accuracy of tuning sufficient for your own purposes. ET is of course an ideal which can only be approached, never achieved, and different musicians have different tolerances for the amount of deviation. If you're happy, well, you're the guy playing it!

I should emphasize that the adjustment of the saddle for each string is chiefly aimed at correcting the intonation at the 12th fret, where thicker strings fret sharper. Getting the 12 fret right means that the other frets high on the neck will be "as good as can be expected", considering that they are conventionally set to a straight logarithmic scale which is uncompensated for string variables. It is my observation after reflecting on my two multi-scales and the third which I hope to build, that for my purposes I MUST develop a method of empirically checking every fret location BEFORE installation, with my electronic tuner with the cents gauge, because it is clear that the math and the reality diverge in the upper registers because of string stretch and because of the different responses of different materials and diameters of the strings. (Making an intonation map of the fingerboard with strings installed but no frets is the chief R-n-D task facing me for the next build.)

Also, I notice that you have made no compensations at the nut. On many guitars there is quite a bit of difference between the intonations of the fattest unwound string (your 2nd) and the thinnest wound string (your 3rd) when fretted at the second or third fret, enough to make first-position chords sour. On my unwound nylon strings, of which I have four, I shorten the string length progressively at the nut, with the thickest, my G3, compensated the most, so that it does not fret sharp at the second fret. Although my implementation of these adjustments is crude, I have significantly improved the intonation from what it was with two straight bones at the string ends, and I expect to do better on the next build since I will be thinking about it from the get-go instead of after the instrument has been built, and trying to fix it.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 10, 2021)

You're British, right? No, I'm not laughing, it's just that you didn't answer me before.
I'll reply in a bit.
Mainly, that compensation on the nut is a general BS, contrary to what guitarists think. You only have to be an engineer to understand it. Math says it all.


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Aug 10, 2021)

jack_cat said:


> I should emphasize [...] chiefly aimed at correcting the intonation at the 12th fret, where thicker strings fret sharper. Getting the 12 fret right means that the other frets high on the neck will be "as good as can be expected", considering that they are conventionally set to a straight logarithmic scale which is uncompensated for string variables. It is my observation after reflecting on my two multi-scales and the third which I hope to build, that for my purposes I MUST develop a method of empirically checking every fret location BEFORE installation, with my electronic tuner with the cents gauge, because it is clear that the math and the reality diverge in the upper registers because of string stretch and because of the different responses of different materials and diameters of the strings.


 --> Yes, that's precisely where I get the pitch (fret no. 12). No, the other frets can INDEED be at pitch, provided some measures are being taken. No, math & reality (physics) never diverge.
So let me explain: yeah, string diameter is the only variable here, all else can be calculated or... Well... Experimented. Along the neck, you need to have as much parallelism between the fretboard and the strings as possible. Imagine archtops and LP designs (well, not the original '52 LP, hahaha!) -> the neck is placed at an angle, because of the arched top. Because otherwise... Well, otherwise it would simply be an augmentation of the problem that you just described, the strings would be farther & farther away from the board, as you approach the bridge. And this is your problem -> too much distance between the string and the board gives you too much room to push the string, and it translates into pitch going upwards. It's similar to too much bending, and you're out of pitch. And it can also happen under normal circumstances, if you have jumbo or extra-jumbo frets, if you hold the note too firmly and push your finger against the fretboard too much, you'll find yourself playing a different note, usually 1/4 step up.
So again, it's ideal to have close to 100% parallelism between the strings and the board. In that circumstance only, the mathematics will always be right.
Problem is, we all like to have the strings as close to the fretboard as possible, otherwise... Well... Hand/Wrist fatigue, right? So some of us are always looking to first get the nut as low as possible. Well there you go, first no-brainer 








jack_cat said:


> Also, I notice that you have made no compensations at the nut.


 --> yeah... so why did I call this BS, right?
Well, it's not me. All, and I mean ALL the luthiers I met (a handful, but it's enough) told me it's BS.
You really have to think math here aswell. Distances are given by calculations. And if you do end up having differences, then that's what adjustable bridges are for  Those differences are indeed expected to be, and the adjustable bridge will offset/shift everything towards the desired pitches.

Now... For the sake of the discussion & the figure of speech, you can never attain 101% pitch perfect tuning (not 100%, but 101%, hehe...).
Why am I calling it 101%? Because NO ONE is going to hear that 1% of a difference.
Notice here that I like to think that all of us can attain 100% (given that we have the means to it), the rest of 1% will only be observed by the tuners, not by our ears.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 10, 2021)

jack_cat said:


> ET is of course an ideal which can only be approached, never achieved,


Is there any concept based on a continuous measurement that doesn't have this statement apply? ET is totally a concept of compromise of what our ears really want to hear anyway, so why does it matter?


----------



## jack_cat (Oct 12, 2021)

"
yeah... so why did I call this BS, right?
Well, it's not me. All, and I mean ALL the luthiers I met (a handful, but it's enough) told me it's BS.
"
We can agree to disagree on this one. Maybe I have met a lot more luthiers than you have!
Luthiers don't play guitar for a living, and _I do_, and I'm the one who plays the thing, and that's why
I do my own intonation on every guitar that I have had built, because I KNOW it's not going to be right. 
I want it like I want it, and if a luthier disagrees, all I have to do is try one of his guitars, and check the
intonation. I agree that nut comp cannot be determined mathematically - it is entirely empirical, but the 
results can be measured precisely with a strobe tuner on every fret. If your so-smart luthier's 2nd and 3rd 
frets play 8 cents sharp as with many, because of a badly set nut, then you have a right to make your own 
decisions instead of meekly accepting a line of crap. Greg Byers's article on nut compensation has been
criticized, because he tried unsuccessfully to determine a workable mathematical formula, but that does not 
diminish the value of the process, it only means that a mathematical approach gets you close, and the
rest is empirical. As I say, the results of nut compensation are measurable, I have measured them 
myself and I know exactly what I am talking about, whereas you are reporting 2nd hand opinions.


----------



## jack_cat (Oct 12, 2021)

- "ET is of course an ideal which can only be approached, never achieved,"
- "Is there any concept based on a continuous measurement that doesn't have this statement apply? ET is totally a concept of compromise of what our ears really want to hear anyway, so why does it matter?"

It only matters if you want all of your chords to play equally in tune in all keys. If you only want to play in one key at a time,
which is a perfectly valid way to go, then you can get much better results than ET by tuning for that key, and if you really 
wanted to, you could also adjust the frets themselves to play better in that key, as was done back in the 16th and 17th centuries 
when movable frets were used. 

What I say is based on being a working musician who plays with other musicians who expect professional results and no fooling.
ET at A4=440 hz is the basis of the musical lingua franca of our time; to not observe this standard is to remove oneself from the
marketplace. I grant that many who read and post on this site are not working musicians, and that every one has the right to
musical freedom. There are many threads on this site and others dealing with other methods of tuning besides ET. These are
very valid musical choices and paths. The choice between ET and some other system is basically an issue of access to the 
marketplace. To use some other system is like going shopping with a non-standard currency. You have to find your market.
If you don't need a market, you are free. This is what it means to be a Liberal Artist: you don't have to make a living doing it.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 12, 2021)

Not sure what you're getting at, but you do you. BTW, probably more people than you think here are either professional or retired professional musicians.


----------



## ixlramp (Oct 13, 2021)

TheOnlyKtulu said:


> Mainly, that compensation on the nut is a general BS, contrary to what guitarists think. You only have to be an engineer to understand it. Math says it all.


Nut slot compensation is not BS, it is logical if you think it through.
Someone who is an engineer would probably understand why nut slot compensation is logical, and the mathematics actually supports it.
I could go into detail about this but do not have the necessary time or energy at the moment.
(Since it is relevant here, and since you made a silly claim about engineers, i will reluctantly state my qualification =S I have a physics degree and come from a family full of engineers. I have natural engineering talent and am very technically and mathematically minded. I have a good understanding of the science of music and guitars.)


TheOnlyKtulu said:


> Along the neck, you need to have as much parallelism between the fretboard and the strings as possible.


No you do not =)


TheOnlyKtulu said:


> too much distance between the string and the board gives you too much room to push the string, and it translates into pitch going upwards.


Correct, but this is just another effect that steadily increases up the frets, therefore it can be compensated for by saddle intonation adjustment.


TheOnlyKtulu said:


> So again, it's ideal to have close to 100% parallelism between the strings and the board. In that circumstance only, the mathematics will always be right.


Incorrect. Intonation will not become mathematically correct when string height is constant along the fretboard. Intonation is always mathematically incorrect due to the many other real world factors.


TheOnlyKtulu said:


> --> yeah... so why did I call this BS, right?
> Well, it's not me. All, and I mean ALL the luthiers I met (a handful, but it's enough) told me it's BS.


This handful of luthiers are wrong. Luthiers, even very talented and respected ones, are often wrong about certain things and often believe crazy things.


TheOnlyKtulu said:


> You really have to think math here aswell. Distances are given by calculations. And if you do end up having differences, then that's what adjustable bridges are for  Those differences are indeed expected to be, and the adjustable bridge will offset/shift everything towards the desired pitches.


Again you are stating that mathematics is on your side of the argument, it actually stands against your argument.
If you understood how intonation works you would know that saddle intonation adjustment cannot fix a nut slot being out of tune with fret 1. This is because saddle intonation adjustment has a pitch altering effect that steadily increases up the frets, so cannot create the necessary 'jump' in intonation between nut and fret 1. Only compensated nut slots can do this, which is why they are not BS =)


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Nov 2, 2021)

I'm sorry, Ixl, I'm only seeing this now, thought I'd already been notified about further replies.
Everything you said does in fact (and I by God I fully agree with this, it's why I first discussed that BS statement) sum up to the following:

"saddle intonation adjustment cannot fix a nut slot being out of tune with fret 1"

Yesss, correct! If the nut is out of tune, then you do have to correct it. But when does that happen? Well it's only when the frets aren't placed 100%. That's why math always works.
I guess I should've added that, but mind you, I was walking off by thinking a guitar will always be build correctly. It will probably not. I'm more of a dreamer, really, lol.
I mean, of course if one's findings afterwards suggest frets have been slightly misplaced (usually fret no. 1, right?), they won't take them out again, as that would be costly as hell. An intonated nut will usually work.
Don't ask me if I'm suggesting modern Music Mans are faulty, I won't answer.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 6, 2021)

ixlramp said:


> ... even very talented and respected ones, are often wrong about certain things and often believe crazy things ...



Left-side Toan
Woods harvested during full (¿or was it new?) moons
Tonewoods have predictable, identifiable and consistent affects on "tone" in electric guitars
The whole "Fanned Fret" patent/trademark/bogus layout technique/extortion-ring nonsense
You can only trademark/patent headstocks, not body designs


----------



## TheOnlyKtulu (Nov 7, 2021)

That's so f. funny! Lol
Although I think they (the ones saying those things) were actually being sarcastic, comical, and up to the point of really messing with the customer's head. Well I should know, cause I've had my share, lol! After which, feeling sorry for what they've done to me, started being more serious.
They're the luthiers after all, not we. Then again, if one wants to think he's better, he should go ahead and make a name of himself. If not..."mouth shut and go jogging" it's what would likely be translated from my mother tongue


----------

