# Ways to multiscale



## bostjan (Jan 2, 2011)

Has anyone ever seen a guitar with fanned frets that aren't straight? I think there could be more benefit from having a wider fan on the bass strings than on the treble strings, and frets shaped like parabolic sections should be able to accomplish that.

What is the limit of comfort possible with an extreme fret fan? It seems like anything much over 2.5" (~80 mm) begins to interfere with my technique. I wonder if there's a way to gradually stretch into more extreme scaling, but I *think* that a parabolic scaling would be more ergonomic for the span than a linear fan.

Is there a free program out there, similar to fretfind, which would generate templates for non-linear fret fans?

Thoughts?


----------



## JamesM (Jan 2, 2011)

Interesting concept. I'll have to think on this.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jan 2, 2011)

True Temperament - Fretting systems

You mean like a true temperament type design with fanned frets?


----------



## CD1221 (Jan 2, 2011)

I imagine bending the fret wire laterally to create the parabolic curve would be a pain in the arse. Time for some creative jiggery.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 2, 2011)

I think that the fretwave and post-lawsuit simialar systems are pretty neat, but I'm just talking about a more sweeping curve, like an extreme closeup of the McDonald's arch.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 2, 2011)

Maybe I should think of it this way: The pitch between strings gradually increases toward the bass side, so instead of 27-30" being 1/2" per string, it would be a little less than 1/4" between the high e and high b, then end up being about 7/8" between the low e and low b, or something like that.

I suppose bending the fretwire to fit perfectly in the slots would be a bit of a pain, but cutting the slots would be the main concern. I think some fance cnc machine could handle it, but cutting by hand would require some clever jigging.


----------



## scherzo1928 (Jan 2, 2011)

I think it's doable. The calculations arent that hard if you know the scale range. But like you said, playing wise it could get weird quite fast.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Jan 2, 2011)

I've thought about this many times. What put me off was cutting the slots. A CNC machine could probably cut it (pun sort of intended) but I'm sure it would be do-able by hand with some jiggery pokery (pun also sort of intended). perhaps a very very sharp knife and a lot of patience could do the trick? Bending a saw blade might be another option, but it could be really quite tricky.
Thoughts?


----------



## JamesM (Jan 2, 2011)

If you've ever tried cutting with a bent saw blade you'd know that's not happening cleanly. I think CNC would be the way to go here.


----------



## scherzo1928 (Jan 2, 2011)

ya, in any case bending the frets would be the problem, unless you are the guy from true temperament.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 2, 2011)

scherzo1928 said:


> ya, in any case bending the frets would be the problem, unless you are the guy from true temperament.


 
Actually, I found bending the frets pretty easy. I bent fretwire for a different project, and its pretty ductile. A gradual bend wouldn't be difficult, but obviously making a jig would be key to it being smooth and accurate would be key. Or yeah, you could do like the true temp. guy and cast them, but that seems like a crazy amount of work.


----------



## vansinn (Jan 3, 2011)

Damn, I've been thinking about the exact same thing for weeks now - and here I thought for once I'd be first coming up with something new.. 

I see no reason at all why frets have to be straight. If scales can be fanned, the fanning can also be made to progressively have more'n'more fan at the lower strings.
I suspect this is what you're talking about..

It makes perfect sense to me:
A wide, say 2½"-3" fan may not fit everybodys playing style.
So, an arrangement with less fanning taking place at the most used frets, where we (i) tend to shred and do barré's more, and then gradually/progressively expanding the scale more at the lower register, might make the instrument nicely comfortable.

Additionally, I really prefer the upper strings being not too thin (can't stand an upper E less than 009½), and do not have too much need for an extended scale before reaching the low E and below. I won't mind the A being slightly longer, though..
So again, such a progressive fan will should work well at keeping the 'normal' strings at suitable gauges, and ensure the lowermost don't get overly thick, loosing crispiness and intonation.


----------



## airpanos (Jan 3, 2011)

You mean something like this?
I would love to have this piece in my collection!







Also i found this an interesting layout for those who like arabian modes


----------



## vansinn (Jan 3, 2011)

airpanos said:


> You mean something like this?



I'm pretty sure bostjan isn't thinking along the (fret)lines of True Temperament fretting, but rather progressively expanding scales per string..



bostjan said:


> Maybe I should think of it this way: The pitch between strings gradually increases toward the bass side, so instead of 27-30" being 1/2" per string, it would be a little less than 1/4" between the high e and high b, then end up being about 7/8" between the low e and low b, or something like that.
> 
> I suppose bending the fretwire to fit perfectly in the slots would be a bit of a pain, but cutting the slots would be the main concern. I think some fance cnc machine could handle it, but cutting by hand would require some clever jigging.



Not sure it could be done this way, but an idea might be:
. determine scale for each string
. for interpolating the fret curve progressions:
either:
. program a computer curve-fitting algorith
or
. use something like French curves for graphical interpolation
. create templates for each fret/slot, based on one of the above derivatives
. run a router with a fine bit along the templates to cut the fretgrooves
. bend the frets on the templates

Sounds easy enough, don't you think, hehe?


----------



## Winspear (Jan 3, 2011)

I've drawn some awful pictures for those struggling to understand.

1) Normal fanned frets. Consistant change in scale length from string to string.
2) Curved fanned frets. Gradually changing scale length from string to string. Low strings have more of a difference between them than high strings.
3) Curved fanned frets using straight lines. Constant change in scale length from string to string up to a certain point, where the change is increased.

Pretty interesting concept, but I'm thinking it would be quite a bit less comfortable than standard fanned frets. I can't really see that the overall scale difference achievable would be all that much more at all. 
I guess if you find extreme fans uncomfortable but really need to try and get a bit more fanning then it would be worth trying. 
I find up to ~.06825" increase per string comfortable on the templates I've played with (5.5" on a 9 string). That's pretty extreme by most means

I think it would be much easier to achieve and much more comfortable on a fretless multiscale instrument. If I had a need for even more fanning on such an instrument, I would consider it then.


----------



## scherzo1928 (Jan 3, 2011)

It would be great for tuning in fifths...


----------



## bostjan (Jan 3, 2011)

EtherealEntity said:


> I've drawn some awful pictures for those struggling to understand.
> 
> 1) Normal fanned frets. Consistant change in scale length from string to string.
> 2) Curved fanned frets. Gradually changing scale length from string to string. Low strings have more of a difference between them than high strings.
> ...



Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. I guess an MS paint file is worth 1000 words.

5.5" is pretty fricken extreme for my hands. I'm thinking that where the fret fan seems most uncomfortable is on the lower frets on higher strings, like trying to play a standard open d chord. Power chords and lower notes never bothered me, even on extreme fans like the one you mentioned. The main benefit from multiscale is on the low e, b, f#, etc., but not one the ADGBE (and upper extension) strings.

It seemed to me like a natural idea in terms of comfort versus tone- shift the bulk of the increase toward the bass strings, where it matters most, and where you can get away with more.

And again, the main trouble with the execution is clearly (to me, anyway) cutting the slots this way. I just don't know how to do it by hand, but I assume that an outward curve would be much easier than true-temperament or fretwave, which curve out and back in.


----------



## Winspear (Jan 3, 2011)

bostjan said:


> 5.5" is pretty fricken extreme for my hands. I'm thinking that where the fret fan seems most uncomfortable is on the lower frets on higher strings, like trying to play a standard open d chord. Power chords and lower notes never bothered me, even on extreme fans like the one you mentioned. The main benefit from multiscale is on the low e, b, f#, etc., but not one the ADGBE (and upper extension) strings.



I agree on the open D chord point. However, even on the 5.5" fan, it was comfortable, which is why I decided on it. (Remember I have only played a card template under the strings - A real guitar may well be harder. I'll see)

I need to see a properly calculated picture - but in my head, it just seems that the difficulty of construction here would far outweigh the advantages.
I can't really see more than a 0.5" increase on the low end being playable. Although the angle at the steepest (lowest) point might well match that of a standard multiscale guitar with a greater scale difference, I feel it would be harder to play.
I'll try and find a way to make a mockup of this at somepoint, because I really need to see it accurately before saying anything like this.

If a 2" fan is comfortable, I can't really imagine curved frets being able to go more than 2.5" before becoming uncomfortable. I think the change of angle across the low strings would mess up powerchords and barre chords if trying to press near the fret.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 3, 2011)

I've thought of the same thing before, especially when trying to figure out scales for hypothetical 8-strings, but I always end up at the conclusion that it would hamper playability, especially for chording, with anything other than a very slight curve. It would be interesting to try, though, since I'd like a guitar that is 24 5/8" on the first string, fanning up to 27" or so on the 7th string, and then over 28.5" on the 8th (really, 30" or so would be nice on the 8th). That's a bit extreme, but that's why I get headaches when I think about this stuff.

A curved/fanned fret guitar might actually work well for someone who plays mostly single notes or who uses touchstyle.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jan 3, 2011)

i think you would call that an exponential fan, no?

i've thought about the exact same thing, but the amount of mathematical mindfuck involved would make it a bitch for luthiers 

if you had machines do the whole cutting of the fret slots though, it would be just fine. but then you would have to get a machine that bends the frets JUST RIGHT or something like that, too!

unless, of course, you do the same thing as the true temperament guys, and just forge each fret manually.

anyway, there has to be a way to do it, but it would require lots of knowledge and advanced... things...

i tried a true temperament strat once. not really impressed by it when i tried it by itself, but that might be because it was a strat


----------



## vansinn (Jan 3, 2011)

The illustration works for the intents, though I believe it would make more sense if the frets had been one contigious gradually expanding curvation.
Still.. I see your point in that such an approach may not change the game too much.

Actually, this way, the more rapidly expanding scales on the lowermost strings will mean a sharper angle of attack where strings cross the frets, which may feel a bit wierd.
Also, if the string is fretted slightly to one side, it may be more offset intonated than had it crossed a straight progressing fanned fret.




MF_Kitten said:


> i think you would call that an exponential fan, no?
> 
> i've thought about the exact same thing, but the amount of mathematical mindfuck involved would make it a bitch for luthiers



I don't think too much math is needed. As long as each fret cross the string at the calculated point, any scale can be chosen per string.
From this follows that once given all the discrete points, i.e. where each fret must cross each string, the fret curve can 'simply' be interpolated.
This is what I tried to outline in my post #14.

It'll very unlikely be an exponential progression; to be honest, this would be quite an aggressive scale expansion, hehe ,)


----------



## dpm (Jan 3, 2011)

This is something I've contemplated but not yet explored. From a building viewpoint CNC allows for the slots to be cut curved and fretwire would conform to the curvature without major issues (just have to be sure not to get any twisting), the only difficultly I can see is in recrowning the wire after levelling the frets.


----------



## dpm (Jan 3, 2011)

OK, just did a quick drawing... what I'm thinking is that curving the frets probably won't help with the overall ergonomic issues of 2.5" scale differences, but it might help with one thing that has been bugging me - I find that on multiscale boards the angle of the frets above 15 or so a little uncomfortable. Curving the frets but keeping the roughly the same scale difference from bass to treble might be a real help here (ie. reducing the scale of the middle strings. For this drawing I increased the difference between each pair of strings by 1.5 do get the next string's scale, starting with a 2mm difference, so it's -

680mm
682mm - 2mm increase
685mm - 3mm inc.
689.5mm - 4.5mm inc.
696.25mm - 6.75mm inc.
706.375mm - 10.125mm inc
721.5625mm - 15.1875mm inc.
744.34375mm - 22.78125mm inc

rather than the 680mm - 740mm layout I normally use with an 8.57mm increase in scale per string.

The upper frets on the treble side look much nicer now, but I'm unsure of how things would feel toward the nut  I've been putting a bunch of ergonomic ideas together for the next 8 I build for myself so I might work this into it too. It won't happen for quite a while though, I've got other instruments to get through first.







Oh, yeah, and another building issue is the nut, but that's easy enough to solve by using individual cylindrical posts for each string.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 3, 2011)

This idea would make sense in a mathematical sort of way. The scale length ratio between 2 adjacent strings could be the same for each pair of adjacent strings.

For example, with straight frets, 1/2" increase per string is *proportionally* a larger change of scale on the treble side than on the bass side.

So I would generate the fan with a constant scale ratio between 2 adjacent strings. With every string you multiply the scale by 1.0???.


----------



## JamesM (Jan 3, 2011)

^^Dan, you are potentially on the cusp of making something fresh for your company. Bojstan gets royalties.


----------



## Durero (Jan 4, 2011)

I've been imagining this kind of design for a while too.

I get stuck between my desire for stainless steel frets and the need to bend the frets into curves.





dpm said:


> the only difficultly I can see is in recrowning the wire after levelling the frets.



Do you think a crowning 'wheel' could be used? I'm imagining a small power tool (Dremel?) turning the crowning wheel with a little jig to maintain a constant height while being able to follow the curve of the fret like a train wheel on train tracks.

I don't know of any such wheel-type metal files but perhaps one could be custom made.


----------



## dpm (Jan 4, 2011)

I think one of stewmac's curved recrowning files would work ok, they're just less efficient and tedious to use. Stainless should be possible, if anything it conforms to curves without as much memory as standard wire, it doesn't tend to spring back to it's original shape. I'd pre-radius the wire as usual then hammer them in. With good hammer technique I _think_ stainless wire would bend sideways and seat nicely with the slot guiding it. 

Seriously considering doing a faux-fretboard from MDF just to get a feel for it.

The crowning wheel is something I've thought about too  Anything to make that job easier would suit me! Problem is how to guide the thing and have it maintain the fret's level state. It also can't pull sideways otherwise the fret would get from the edges.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 4, 2011)

It's good to know that others have already thought of the same thing.

Now if I could just figure out how the trick to high density, low elastic modulus electric guitar strings, there could be a whole new type of extended range...


----------



## dpm (Jan 4, 2011)

molecular limitations are such a bitch

What are your thoughts on the layout I posted above?


----------



## bostjan (Jan 4, 2011)

Actually, that looks great. The overall span on the scale length seems comparable to something with linear multiscale, but the treble strings look a lot more tame. If the dynamic ratio was closer to 1.25, and the scales started out 680, 684.5, 690.125, 697.156(25), 705.945(3125), 716.931(640625), 730.664(55078125), 747.830(6884765625) mm, it might look a little more rounded, but perhaps that defeats the purpose of the exponential curve too much.

I guess if it feels too extreme, it's gone too far, and if it doesn't feel too extreme, then it's maybe not far enough.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 4, 2011)

Another way to fan frets ...


----------



## bostjan (Jan 4, 2011)

ixlramp said:


> Another way to fan frets ...








Who's bass is that?!




That's a lot of bolts!

Wow! That's ... gratuitous.
I can't imagine trying to play double stops, or heck, even playing that at all. 

Would this fan be too extreme? -

580.952 mm for highest string (however high it'll tune) .005" high tensile
(10.3 N will get it to high D5, but 10.3 N is extremely demanding on a .005")
600.000 mm for high A4 .007" plain or high tensile, 12.1 N
614.286 mm for high E4 .009" plain, 11.8 N
625.000 mm for high B3 .012" plain, 12.2 N
633.882 mm for G3 .015" plain, 12.3 N
644.984 mm for D3 .024" wound, 15.6 N
658.862 mm for A2 .032" wound, 16.0 N
676.210 mm for E2 .042" wound, 16.2 N, 1% G1
697.894 mm for low B1 .054" wound, 15.9 N, 2% G1
725.000 mm for low F#1 .070" wound, 16.1 N, 6% G1
758.882 mm for low C#1 .088" wound, 15.5 N, 14% G1

The two ends are pretty extreme angles, I'm thinking either keep the perpendicular fret low (5 or 7) or put the bulk of the curve into the bridge and have the frets gradually straighten (so that there is no perpendicular fret at all).

But there's an eleven string multiscale, that if playable, should sound halfway decent. The key is playability.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 4, 2011)

ixlramp said:


> Another way to fan frets ...



I have no idea why but i want it.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 4, 2011)

Incidentally, that bass is not multiscale. I dig some of the other basses that guy's made, though.

You guys into Fender Relics will love this:


----------



## JamesM (Jan 4, 2011)

^Sure showed that bass who's boss! Check that naked truss.


----------



## aardfish (Jan 5, 2011)

dpm said:


> Seriously considering doing a faux-fretboard from MDF just to get a feel for it.


oh god, please.


----------



## Durero (Jan 5, 2011)

dpm said:


> I think one of stewmac's curved recrowning files would work ok, they're just less efficient and tedious to use. Stainless should be possible, if anything it conforms to curves without as much memory as standard wire, it doesn't tend to spring back to it's original shape. I'd pre-radius the wire as usual then hammer them in. With good hammer technique I _think_ stainless wire would bend sideways and seat nicely with the slot guiding it.
> 
> Seriously considering doing a faux-fretboard from MDF just to get a feel for it.
> 
> The crowning wheel is something I've thought about too  Anything to make that job easier would suit me! Problem is how to guide the thing and have it maintain the fret's level state. It also can't pull sideways otherwise the fret would get from the edges.



Thanks for the info Dan that's very encouraging. I'd love to see any exploration you do in this direction too.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 6, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Now if I could just figure out how the trick to high density, low elastic modulus electric guitar strings, there could be a whole new type of extended range...



Have you heard about 'metallic glass' / amorphous metal? Much higher tensile strength and other good properties as guitar strings. I found a patent HERE.

"In accordance with the present invention, the use of an amorphous metal in a musical instrument string offers surprising and unexpected advantages over those conventional metals, metallic composites and non-metallic compositions traditionally used in musical instrument strings. Amorphous metal possesses high tensile strengthup to tenfold higher than that of conventional musical instrument string metals such as carbon steel or stainless steel and has a tenfold wider elastic range. In addition, the lack of imperfections inherent in crystalline materials provides for improved damping characteristics over a longer period of use. More specifically, conventional metals are characterized by a highly-ordered arrangement of atoms, commonly termed a crystalline or crystalline lattice structure.

In a conventional musical instrument string, the vibratory energy of a conventional metal string is absorbed and dissipated by the movement of the dislocations and grain boundaries present in the crystalline structure. The movement and subsequent growth of dislocations within a conventional metal string as the string is repeatedly set into motion impedes the movement of the crystals within the crystalline structure and, consequently, inhibits the ability of the string to sustain a vibratory motion. Furthermore, the interaction between the grain boundaries of adjacent crystals within a conventional metal string causes internal friction and effectively converts vibratory energy into heat, decreasing the amplitude and overall resonance of the string. At bottom, the crystalline structure of a conventional metal absorbs mechanical energy, whether it be from a pluck, strum or bow, and dampens both the sustain and overall volume produced by a vibrating string.

A musical instrument string having amorphous metal exhibits improved damping characteristics and increased mechanical energy attributable to the lack of atomic alignment within the amorphous structure. Absent from an amorphous metal are those imperfections inherently present in the crystalline lattice structure of a conventional metal that create friction and lead to the absorption, rather than transfer, of energy. In turn, the vibrational motion of the string maintains a higher level of energy for a longer period of use. As a result, the pitch produced by a musical instrument string containing amorphous metal is brighter, louder and more sustained than those musical instrument strings made of conventional materials."


----------



## bostjan (Jan 6, 2011)

^ Hmm, I took a look at that, and it sounds interesting. I'm a little worried about the hafnium-based strings, though, as they'd be rather heavy, which could give them a pretty extreme "cheese-slicer" feel as you'd have to bump the gauge down significantly and still deal with higher tension. If their claim is true, that these strings have ten times the tensile strength of regular plain steel strings, tuning to B5 might be possible at 25.5"/647.7 mm.

My other worry with the zirconium based strings is, in being <25% weakly ferromagnetic material, that they'll be nearly invisible to magnetic pickups.

Their iron-based string formula is pretty vague, but it essentially looks like fancy stainless steel. If it is an amorphous version of that, I don't really expect there to be an increase in bulk tensile strength, but there ought to be a more consistent performance.

Anyone interested in developing a ferromagnetic high-density bismuth/tungsten type alloy for string windings? If you could double the density of the wraps, you could tune down regular string gauges lower and they should, in theory, actually sound clearer. The key is getting them to react well with pickups. Maybe throw a little samarium and cobalt into the mix and hope for the best?

With the strings that the patent describes (assuming accuracy in the data presented), and an exponential multiscale, I could see where a fifteen string single course instrument might be possible, tuned: D#0, G#0, C#1, F#1, B1, E2, A2, D3, G3, B3, E4, A4, D5, G5, C6 with string gauges .145", .115", .088", .070", .054", .042", .032", .024" wound and .015", .012", .009", .007" plain, then perhaps .006", .005", .004" high tensile amorphous zirconium.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 6, 2011)

bostjan said:


> If their claim is true, that these strings have ten times the tensile strength of regular plain steel strings



Well I'm not sure about that claim:






Excessively bouncy ball video:

[YouTubeVid]rOEBR3DcqN0[/YouTubeVid]


----------



## bostjan (Jan 7, 2011)

ixlramp said:


> Well I'm not sure about that claim:



Hmm, not ten times the yield strength, but still sounds neat. Imagine the brightness these strings would make!


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 8, 2011)

Yeah exactly. I guess the cost is the current problem.

Also, I have this gut feeling that however high the tensile strength may be, once you get down to strings of .007 or .006, they will still be prone to being cut by any sharp edges they are in contact with. I don't know my materials so I'm not sure about this, but perhaps we really have reached the limit of practical gauge?

If so then perhaps then amorphous metal could be used for .008s and .007s that can be tuned tighter and therefore higher. The mass would help with generating a good signal.


----------



## vansinn (Jan 9, 2011)

Very interesting, these high tensile products..
I just wish someone would make graduated tensility (does that word even exist?) string sets starting with lower-tensile upper strings gradually changing into high-tensile lower strings.

The reason:
Having played a couple of 27" Ibbys, I'd be just fine with this scale, tuning from low-B to A4.
However, I really do not like plain E's thinner than 9½, and, as much as I deeply respect Gerry's work on A4+ strings, as long as there's only one manufacturer and strings needs to be as thin as 008/007 for A4, I won't go that route.

A graduaded tensility set of i.e. 9,10,12,16,22,32,42,50-somehing would be awesome, at least for me.
Don't get me wrong; I fully dig compound scales, but IMHO such are needed mostly due to ordinary strings being roughly the same tensility across the board.
That, and of cause that longer scales simply deliver different tonal balance and intonability.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

vansinn said:


> Very interesting, these high tensile products..
> I just wish someone would make graduated tensility (does that word even exist?) string sets starting with lower-tensile upper strings gradually changing into high-tensile lower strings.
> 
> The reason:
> ...



Well, unfortunately, this is not as easily done as it is said. Materials are either amorphous or crystaline, so there is no in-between, unless every string was a completely different material. In that case, the resulting feel would be the opposite of continuous.

If increased density could be done to steel by the presence of a heavy impurity, then graduated density could be possible, though. The problem is that most heavy metals do not alloy well with steel in any significant amounts.

A multiscale instrument offers longer scale lengths for lower strings as well as shorter scale lengths for higher strings. Both have their clear benefits for any multi-stringed instrument. Even mandolins, with four courses of strings, benefit significantly from multiscale.

Also, multiscaling does not allow vastly more range to an instrument. A typical 2" scale span, for instance, can allow a higher string to be tuned up one-two semitones. There are also ergonomic and tonal benefits that make a vast difference to me.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

Scale picture of super extreme idea (without frets...yet).
Left to right/Low to high:
Light Blue - Infrasonic
F00 @ 809 mm .285"
A#00 @ 768 mm .225"
Dark blue - Super low
D#0 @ 736 mm .175"
G#0 @ 711 mm .135"
C#1 @ 690 mm .100"
Green representing a nine string:
F#1 @ 674 mm .078"
B1 @ 660 mm .059"
E2 @ 650 mm .046"
A2 @ 641 mm .034"
D3 @ 635 mm .026"
G3 @ 629 mm .015"
B3 @ 625 mm .012"
E4 @ 619 mm .009"
A4 @ 611 mm .007"
The orange represents a higher string that should be possible with modern high tensile materials
D5 @ 600 mm .005"
The bright red strings are what is possible if the claims about amorphous strings are true:
G5 @ 586 mm .004"
C6 @ 566 mm .003"


----------



## Andrew_B (Jan 11, 2011)

found out by accident once you can put a fret through the bender on its side


----------



## Jzbass25 (Jan 11, 2011)

I want True Temperament so bad and Ive always wanted to try a multiscale guitar haha, this thread is a GAS attack


----------



## vansinn (Jan 11, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Scale picture of super extreme idea (without frets...yet).



Even without frets, I have not trouble envisioning how this will work out.
Perpendicular around 9th fret, right?
Such a graduated fan should be most helpful to ensure most frets doesn't feel too fanned, while ensuring enough scale for the lowermost string(s) and enable easier A4 adoption. 

Even though it may seem the lowermost strings gets excessively fanned this way, I'd say we'd probably not play too much on the upper frets lower strings, so this exessive part can be ruled out.

Likewise maybe a Bit less work going on at the very lowermost region, so again, less of a problem - and if Rob Gus can play hand-over-head on his extended low strings, and the rest of us mortals can play 35" bass, this will be doable too, hehe 

Cool graphics! Which tool did you use, BTW?
You're much better at such than I am - and I used to be a programmer; how lame..


----------



## bostjan (Jan 11, 2011)

vansinn said:


> Even without frets, I have not trouble envisioning how this will work out.
> Perpendicular around 9th fret, right?



Yes, that's right.


vansinn said:


> Such a graduated fan should be most helpful to ensure most frets doesn't feel too fanned, while ensuring enough scale for the lowermost string(s) and enable easier A4 adoption.



That's exactly what I'm trying to think of. I think most chording is done on the six standard strings with the higher extended strings commonly added, and the lower extended strings rarely added to open chords.



vansinn said:


> Even though it may seem the lowermost strings gets excessively fanned this way, I'd say we'd probably not play too much on the upper frets lower strings, so this exessive part can be ruled out.



I included the entire scale scheme, but some of the lowermost strings are pretty ridiculously low, so they'd be added if the other strings worked out well enough. The whole thing altogether with seventeen possible strings is going to basically be unplayable, from what I can see, but taking sections of it could give you some pretty incredible range for an ERG.



vansinn said:


> Likewise maybe a Bit less work going on at the very lowermost region, so again, less of a problem - and if Rob Gus can play hand-over-head on his extended low strings, and the rest of us mortals can play 35" bass, this will be doable too, hehe



Well, an F00 is so low that the second harmonic is barely audible.



vansinn said:


> Cool graphics! Which tool did you use, BTW?
> You're much better at such than I am - and I used to be a programmer; how lame..



It's actually just MS Paint. :\


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 11, 2011)

Id have to imagine that a string 3 thousandths thick would cut you no matter how round it is.


----------



## vansinn (Jan 11, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Id have to imagine that a string 3 thousandths thick would cut you no matter how round it is.



Hehe, I agree - but he also said some strings _could_ be taken off the scheme.
Well, talking about extendability, this thing could slice cheese as well..


----------



## bostjan (Jan 11, 2011)

That's what callouses are for. 

I honestly don't think that those claims about the amorphous zirconium alloy strings are 100% true. In my experience, a .005" annealed steel string is pretty much a cheese slicer, but not a meat slicer.

Regarless, the nine string part of the idea seems like it'd be playable with normal strings...if it's build-able. Going up to a ten or even eleven string *should* be possible with a design similar to this, and I offer the rest as speculation. The numbers work out, but I think that there are many practical limitations that I'm not factoring into the idea.


----------



## Chronograph (Jan 11, 2011)

Interesting concept. Many difficulties may be faced though IMO. 

Even if the fretwork could be hypothetically done from the practical standpoint, one should think about pickups repeating the curves of the fretboard end and the bridge saddles. There also might be issues with intonation when bending the strings. 

That said, the idea is worth thinking about I believe. Would be glad to hear if Dan would be able to turn this into reality.


----------



## severussnape (Jan 11, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Id have to imagine that a string 3 thousandths thick would cut you no matter how round it is.




You would think so.

Do we even have the ability to make a string that thin?


----------



## vansinn (Jan 11, 2011)

Chronograph said:


> Even if the fretwork could be hypothetically done from the practical standpoint, one should think about pickups repeating the curves of the fretboard end..



Well, looking at bostjans graphics, it may seem that, with the perpendicular fret at 9th fret, the part of the board at the body end will be overdramatizedly exaggerated.

However, I'd think (and personally likely play this way) most wouldn't use this part too much (pretty fat to reach over on a 9+ design), so the board could be gracefully trimmed, as is often seen on 'ordinary' fanned designs.
Thus, from an esthetic point of view, normal slanted pickups could be used.
I can't see poles would nessesarily need to be specifically dispositioned, unless the player would have special tonal requirements related to pickup/pole picking-up patterns..



Chronograph said:


> ..and the bridge saddles.



Yes, this could be an interesting challenge, hehe. But still doable using i.e. ready-made GraphTech saddles, like the ones used in i.e. Hipshot style bridges.
Also, individual bridge/saddles like those from ABM or ABT could resolve this.



Chronograph said:


> There also might be issues with intonation when bending the strings.



Yes, but AFAICT, mostly at the more extreme lower -strings parts of the board.
Again, with less usage of the lower-string part of the board at the body end, this shouldn't be too much more problematic than with an ordinary compound scale design, leaving us with some likely intonability issues on low strings near the headstock.
I might speculate this part might see less severe bendings taking place, though, so..


----------



## bostjan (Jan 11, 2011)

Good point about the pickup aesthetic. I've wondered if winding a pickup with non-oval coils would alter the tone. It should be possible, although it'd be a pain to do more than one at a time, to shape the pickups to match the curvature of the bridge. There are a few thoughts to consider in this case:

1) If high-tensile strings are non-ferro-magnetic or even weakly ferro-magnetic, then it will be impractical to use magnetic pickups.
2) With the vast expanse of string gauges and purpose on the possible lower strings (the lighter blue ones in particular), a split pickup with two or more voicings might be necessary.
3) If piezo pickups are used, there may well be a large imbalance between the amplitude of the highest and lowest strings, such that the saddle under the highest string may be excited by the vibration of the lowest string, making it difficult to use a preamp to balance the output.
4) If optical pickups are used, the bulky aparatus on the bridge may interfere with an already difficult problem of palm muting. (Or maybe not, but I'm assuming it would be, based on my mind's eye.)

Again, the scope of my original idea was for a nine string instrument, using the green and black strings in the figure posted earlier. The curvature and span are much less extreme in that example than the full seventeen strings, which would provide a pretty impossible scenario from many practical problems.

I can see this working for a nine, ten, or maybe eleven string. I've never seen an eleven string with a high D5.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 11, 2011)

Nice design bostjan


----------



## vansinn (Jan 11, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Good point about the pickup aesthetic. I've wondered if winding a pickup with non-oval coils would alter the tone. It should be possible, although it'd be a pain to do more than one at a time, to shape the pickups to match the curvature of the bridge. There are a few thoughts to consider in this case:
> 
> 1) If high-tensile strings are non-ferro-magnetic or even weakly ferro-magnetic, then it will be impractical to use magnetic pickups.



Comments after 3) and 4) below..



bostjan said:


> 2) With the vast expanse of string gauges and purpose on the possible lower strings (the lighter blue ones in particular), a split pickup with two or more voicings might be necessary.



Hehe, I've been thinking of such too - now why do you always beat me on the line 



bostjan said:


> 3) If piezo pickups are used, there may well be a large imbalance between the amplitude of the highest and lowest strings, such that the saddle under the highest string may be excited by the vibration of the lowest string, making it difficult to use a preamp to balance the output.
> 4) If optical pickups are used, the bulky aparatus on the bridge may interfere with an already difficult problem of palm muting. (Or maybe not, but I'm assuming it would be, based on my mind's eye.)



Then how about Hall sensors? - though I've never heard of such used for musical instruments, nor have any knowledge as to if such would be sensitive enough, or, sortof important.. if they'd actually _sound_ good..  
Piezo's could be employed using one amplifier per string. As this would require several dual or quad opamps, simply using a discrete single-transistor (or FET) stage per string, fed to a summing amplifier, would reduce the design and power consumption considerably, especially if using FET's. Using SMD's would result in a neat small footprint.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 11, 2011)

I think a Hall sensor would run into the same or similar limitations as magnetic pickups.

Maybe this calls for an optical pickup with a lower profile. What if the optical driver was closer to the neck, angled toward the bridge, and the sensors were under the saddles?






This way, the receiver could be shielded without requiring the entire saddle to be covered, thus having less effect on the player's technique.


----------



## Durero (Jan 11, 2011)

Regarding the curvature of the pickup: single-string pickups would work very well, just as single-string bridge saddles would.


----------



## dpm (Jan 12, 2011)

Single string pickups would be the way to go if there's dramatic changes in bridge position relative to each other. If we're talking about summing to mono into a standard amp then it's a matter of buffering each one then summing and boosting. Like vansinn says, you need to be careful of current draw with onboard preamps, so buffering with a jfet or mosfet would be best, maybe followed by an opamp boost. You could make each pickup identical and tune it's resonance with variable input impedance and capacitance. On a recent Oni that just got into it's owner's hands I've done an 8 channel MOSFET pre with tweakable input impedance and boost for 4 magnetic channels (split bass and treble ala Charlie Hunter), two buffer channels to isolate the controls, and 2 piezo channels.


----------



## Durero (Jan 12, 2011)

dpm said:


> Single string pickups would be the way to go if there's dramatic changes in bridge position relative to each other. If we're talking about summing to mono into a standard amp then it's a matter of buffering each one then summing and boosting. Like vansinn says, you need to be careful of current draw with onboard preamps, so buffering with a jfet or mosfet would be best, maybe followed by an opamp boost. You could make each pickup identical and tune it's resonance with variable input impedance and capacitance. On a recent Oni that just got into it's owner's hands I've done an 8 channel MOSFET pre with tweakable input impedance and boost for 4 magnetic channels (split bass and treble ala Charlie Hunter), two buffer channels to isolate the controls, and 2 piezo channels.



Very cool!

Any pics?


----------



## dpm (Jan 12, 2011)

yessiree, I think it's OK to break cover on this...


----------



## vansinn (Jan 12, 2011)

Oh my holy gods! Dan, you works never fails to amaze me 
Some sunny day I just have to own one from you..


----------



## vansinn (Jan 12, 2011)

bostjan said:


> I think a Hall sensor would run into the same or similar limitations as magnetic pickups.



Of course, what was I thinking of..  it's based on reacting to changing flux. Actually, Hall elements may be not-at-all suitable as pickups, as IIRC it's more apt for on/off and impulse-like detections, but memoriy may fail me on this..



bostjan said:


> Maybe this calls for an optical pickup with a lower profile. What if the optical driver was closer to the neck, angled toward the bridge, and the sensors were under the saddles?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmnn.. I foresee the problem that, at least with finger playing, the light beams may often be obscured enough to provoke failure at reading it.
OTOH, if the light beam is sufficiently narrow focused, and focused fairly close to the bridge, it may work.
However, as ingoing and outgoing angles are the same, either the transmitter needs to located fairly deep, or the reciever/detector needs to located fairly close to the strings.


Hehe, here an idea I've sometimes though of trying to dig out from the distant past.

Back in the early 80's, a dk hifi mag had an article about modding an acoustic this way:
All strings fully electrically isolated.
Some electronics per string detecting the changing resistance with the vibrating string, and turning it into something meaningful.

According to the article, it should've sounded pretty much like an acoustic.
Damn me, not making a copy of the article back then; can't even remember which magazine. I'll go poke our main library and elsewhere..


----------



## vansinn (Jan 12, 2011)

Ooups, erlier today I posted something for another thread here, in case someone wondered wtf..


----------



## bostjan (Jan 12, 2011)

Dan,

That is very interesting and unique. What inspired that shape, and what does the headstock look like, if there is one? The shape reminds me of a map of Australia. 

Are there any more guitars going up on the Oni website? 

@Vansinn,



vansinn said:


> Of course, what was I thinking of..  it's based on reacting to changing flux. Actually, Hall elements may be not-at-all suitable as pickups, as IIRC it's more apt for on/off and impulse-like detections, but memoriy may fail me on this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LED's can be fairly well-focused cheaply. Maybe if there is cross-talk between strings, then an infrared LASER diode could be used. The receiver should be right under the string on the saddle, and the transmitter should be fairly close to the bridge. The closer, the better, but I wanted to exadurate to show the angles in my crude drawing.




vansinn said:


> Hehe, here an idea I've sometimes though of trying to dig out from the distant past.
> 
> Back in the early 80's, a dk hifi mag had an article about modding an acoustic this way:
> All strings fully electrically isolated.
> ...



Measuring miniscule changes in already tiny resistances would prove to be difficult, I suppose. I think that measuring the vibration directly through electromagnetic or mechanical means should be less fool-proof. Maybe the piezo pickups would be cross-talk free as it is.


----------



## Durero (Jan 12, 2011)

That's beautiful work Dan!

Fascinating ergonomic shape. I'd also love to see a shot of the whole guitar including headstock. What scale lengths did you go with?

So are those humbuckers split inside between bass and treble? If so how did you wind them before assembling them into one seamless-looking unit?


----------



## BlackMastodon (Jan 12, 2011)

Wha-what is this? I don't even. There are so many switches! It looks magnificent!


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 12, 2011)

dpm said:


> yessiree, I think it's OK to break cover on this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't want to make this piece of art sound unoriginal (because it isn't) but that look exactly like what a single cut Strandberg would look like.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 12, 2011)

That new Oni is beautiful. What a stunning shape!


----------



## dpm (Jan 12, 2011)

Thanks guys, yeah it's an ergonomic thing that naturally gravitated to Klein and Strandberg territory. The design brief was to have it sit on the leg without compromising posture because the owner sings and plays. It had to sit on the right leg alone and I wanted to make it also sit on both legs in a classical position so that how the lower half developed. I like how it blends the traditional shape and burst with all the crazy stuff  Controls are stacked magnetic volume and tone, piezo blend, pickup select and single coil switch each for bass and treble sides, plus an 'output mode' switch that gives mono, split bass and treble, or split piezo and magnetic dual outputs. The pickup coils are just made like shorter humbucker coils then assembled onto a single baseplate with a shared magnet.

Anyway, back to the electronics stuff...

In my mind for electric guitar use magnetic pickups are still the way to go, even if they're miniaturised low impedance things like in the Roland GK pickups. Saddles piezos are sensitive to movement noise and just plain sound weird with techniques like palm muting (IMO). I recently read something Rick Turner wrote about various issues with light sensitive pickups, and how the lightwave people had, IIRC, problems with changes in ambient light, stage lights etc... 

The resistance thing is interesting. I'm assuming it would work on the changing resistance of the string between the bridge saddle and whichever fret is in use. Problems that spring to mind include possibly having to tune the circuit for particular string gauges and materials, the effect of oil and grime build up and corrosion, and maybe even a huge electronic spike if you break a string  Anything that's outside the usual magnetic or piezo areas would probably need a lot of development work.


----------



## JacobShredder (Jan 13, 2011)

Idk...I cant see the whole..different multiscale being very comfortable. actually...I can hardl see a standard multiscale being comfortable for me if it had an extreme difference of scales.

Id much rather just have True Temperate frets I think =P


----------



## vansinn (Jan 13, 2011)

JacobShredder said:


> Idk...I cant see the whole..different multiscale being very comfortable. actually...I can hardl see a standard multiscale being comfortable for me if it had an extreme difference of scales.



Try this: Make sure your guitar is up at a 30-40 deg angle, play thumb-under, run you hand up'n'down the fretboard, and notice how your hand/fingers naturally tends to follow such a fanned layout.
Also, notice how your fingers tends to crumble a bit together on the high strings, and tends to naturally stretch out towards the lower strings, again naturally following that of a fanned layout.
How much fan will feel natural or adaptable will of course vary from player to player.
I don't even have such an instrument, but printouts and the like feels absolutely natural to me, and in the realm of multistrings, actually more natural than perpendicular fretting.



> Id much rather just have True Temperate frets I think =P



Which doesn't have much to do with extended range and multiscales, except for maybe being useful to pitch/intonation-corrections on such layouts too..


----------



## XEN (Jan 13, 2011)

dpm said:


> yessiree, I think it's OK to break cover on this...


Perfection, as always.


----------



## Chronograph (Jan 13, 2011)

Interesting body shape Dan. Not sure if it would work for me though as I always play in a classical position holding a guitar on the left leg. I have difficulties playing 24-fretted guitars as the cutaway after the lower horn is positioned too far away giving me lesser comfort compared to 22-fretted instruments.


----------



## Durero (Jan 13, 2011)

dpm said:


> I wanted to make it also sit on both legs in a classical position so that how the lower half developed.


I think it would balance perfectly in classical position


----------



## elq (Aug 20, 2011)

a bit of a bump...


Dan is the man


----------



## CD1221 (Aug 20, 2011)

oh fuck me.


I need to give that guy some cash. 

Is this one of Dan's new directions, or is it a crazy custom idea the two of you cooked up?


----------



## dpm (Aug 20, 2011)

The history is... back when I was first screwing with the designs in CAD I briefly pondered curved frets, and I _think_ something similar came to mind then, but was totally impossible with my equipment at the time. This thread of Bostjan's flipped the switch again, and I realised that with my current CNC fret slotting arrangement this would indeed possibly work. So consider it an unintentional Bostjan/dpm collaboration


----------



## CD1221 (Aug 20, 2011)

When my house is paid off, i may sell up and move north to be your assistant. Really liking the new direction.


----------



## dpm (Aug 20, 2011)

I hope you work for nothing! Actually, with the new direction talk and all, I'm kind of hoping I can eventually get some (paid) help with the process. Right now, with every guitar being different in many ways the only person who know wtf is going on is me, which leaves sanding as the only job anyone could assist with. Even then, sanding is a skill, there's a technique and rules to go with it if you want to see the difference between a 'furniture' finish and an instrument finish (no offence intended to furniture makers)


----------



## severussnape (Aug 20, 2011)

Are you thinking of making this your standard fretting system if this works out the way you intended it?


----------



## dpm (Aug 20, 2011)

That's the current plan with that particular body shape.


----------



## Durero (Aug 20, 2011)

That's an awesome development.


----------



## Deadnightshade (Aug 20, 2011)

Dan's on his way to true temperament multiscale


----------



## vansinn (Aug 21, 2011)

This is super! very neat, Dan 
As mentioned earlier, I've also had the idea of non-straight fanning floating in my mind; just couldn't anything about it..
I named it _progressive multiscale_ on my sketches 

One thing is making sketches and graphics, but actually _seeing_ it on a board is believing.

Dan, would you have a pic or two showiing the whole board? (maybe a premature question..)
I'd really love seeing how the concept will seem to feel like, playing wise..


----------



## elq (Aug 21, 2011)

vansinn said:


> Dan, would you have a pic or two showiing the whole board?




http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/2626502-post378.html


----------



## noizfx (Aug 21, 2011)

So will my Oni be getting the e-scale?


----------



## luca9583 (Dec 13, 2011)

dpm said:


> Controls are stacked magnetic volume and tone, piezo blend, pickup select and single coil switch each for bass and treble sides, plus an 'output mode' switch that gives mono, split bass and treble, or split piezo and magnetic dual outputs. The pickup coils are just made like shorter humbucker coils then assembled onto a single baseplate with a shared magnet.




Very cool setup. Is the split bass and treble mode for the guitar pickups or for the piezo only? Is it an octophonic pickup?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 14, 2011)

dpm said:


> I hope you work for nothing! Actually, with the new direction talk and all, I'm kind of hoping I can eventually get some (paid) help with the process. Right now, with every guitar being different in many ways the only person who know wtf is going on is me, which leaves sanding as the only job anyone could assist with. Even then, sanding is a skill, there's a technique and rules to go with it if you want to see the difference between a 'furniture' finish and an instrument finish (no offence intended to furniture makers)


Dan, do you work as a luthier full time or is it just a paid hobby/part time thing?
I might be able to go abroad for apprenticeship in late 2012/2013...


----------



## dpm (Dec 17, 2011)

luca9583 said:


> Very cool setup. Is the split bass and treble mode for the guitar pickups or for the piezo only? Is it an octophonic pickup?



Everything is split, the magnetic pickups are quad coil units, really just 2 humbuckers sharing a magnet and baseplate each.



UnderTheSign said:


> Dan, do you work as a luthier full time or is it just a paid hobby/part time thing?
> I might be able to go abroad for apprenticeship in late 2012/2013...



My time is still split between guitar repairs for another luthier, and guitar building as Oni. I'd intended on (started, in fact) going full time with Oni but circumstances didn't allow it to happen as planned  Doubtful I'll be able to offer any training or paid work any time soon.


----------



## luca9583 (Dec 20, 2011)

EtherealEntity said:


> I've drawn some awful pictures for those struggling to understand.
> 
> 1) Normal fanned frets. Consistant change in scale length from string to string.
> 2) Curved fanned frets. Gradually changing scale length from string to string. Low strings have more of a difference between them than high strings.
> ...



The curved fan frets with straight lines option might be perfect for what i'm looking for.

Do you guys reckon the following idea would work?

Let's say it's an 8 string guitar with standard tuning on the top 6 strings, plus a low E1 and lower B0 on the low strings, but where only the first 7 frets ever get used on the low strings (for single note playing etc):

8 strings
Top 6 strings 25.5-28", with perpendicular fret around 7th fret
Bottom 2 strings 28-32" or 28-30", but with perpendicular fret on 3rd or 4th fret, and with only 7 frets on the bottom 2 strings.


I'm thinking that if i only use the bottom 7 frets then this could work, because the unplayable part of the fan of the bass side from the 7th fret upwards would be fretless and not used. Not sure where this would leave the bridge and pickup placement though.


----------



## Winspear (Dec 26, 2011)

Possibly, though I don't understand why the perpendicular fret would be in a different place. Unless you're talking about something different to the picture I drew - some kind of partial fret/extended string design, I'm not sure I understand. Draw a sketch and I'll make a proper scale mockup for you.


----------



## luca9583 (Dec 26, 2011)

EtherealEntity said:


> Possibly, though I don't understand why the perpendicular fret would be in a different place. Unless you're talking about something different to the picture I drew - some kind of partial fret/extended string design, I'm not sure I understand. Draw a sketch and I'll make a proper scale mockup for you.



Here's a rough sketch (just like your picture)..i included more frets on the bass side to show how extreme the fan would get, but those could be fretless on the bass side (bottom 2 strings) only from the 8th fret upwards (to save work and hassle making the frets maybe)

The reason i thought that the perpendicular fret on the bass side should be different to the top was because when i compared 4 of my guitars (Les Paul & Strat vs Agile 30" scale and 34" scale Ibanez bass) it seemed it might make the bass fan section more playable..but not entirely sure. 

It also depends on the scale length of the bass side anyway, which probably wouldn't be more than 31.5.

The only issue i can see with this at the moment is having to make "multi angled" pickups..which might be a real pain in the ass

View attachment 23310


----------



## Winspear (Dec 26, 2011)

Well that was a lot harder than I imagined haha. 

Firstly the scale length of the 6th and 7th string can't be the same unless you want a partial bit of straight fret between..
The 7th string on this is 28.5 inch. 8th is 31.
I also made the string spacing the same all the way (7.5mm) because I couldn't get the two boards to join together right otherwise..

Doesn't seem too practical at all. I think bent pickups would be out of the picture. Could use a standard angled 8 for the neck and an angled 7 for the bridge, I guess you'd need a single for the 8th string bridge unless you wanted the tone to be radically different. I guess in a bass+guitar type application it could work, and the extended bridge wouldn't matter so much. I guess that's what you'd be going for anyway what with only having 7 frets there?


----------



## luca9583 (Dec 26, 2011)

EtherealEntity said:


> Well that was a lot harder than I imagined haha.
> 
> Firstly the scale length of the 6th and 7th string can't be the same unless you want a partial bit of straight fret between..
> The 7th string on this is 28.5 inch. 8th is 31.
> ...



Practicality aside..that looks awesome (and thanks for doing it mate)!! Those scale lengths would be perfect..

If i could do it so i had a separate bridge pickup just for the 2 bottom strings then it might actually work, especially with 2 separate rails pickups for the top 6 and bottom 2.

In the end though i'll probably stick to a 4" fan 26-30" given that i already have the bridge pickup made, and i'm sure it would increase the cost a lot to do something like this, without knowing how it would turn out.

Having said that the low frets on the bass side do look pretty playable in that picture. Ha ha ha it never ends.


----------



## Winspear (Dec 26, 2011)

Yeah they absolutely do look playable if you just wanted the lower frets. I actually saw a guitar somewhat like this on google images in passing the other day, but I was after something else and didn't pay any attention...
But yes, could definitely work in a seperate pickup, basslines on the lower frets context.

I wrote on your profile yesterday by the way - how come you didn't get on with the Hunter guitar?


----------



## luca9583 (Dec 26, 2011)

EtherealEntity said:


> Yeah they absolutely do look playable if you just wanted the lower frets. I actually saw a guitar somewhat like this on google images in passing the other day, but I was after something else and didn't pay any attention...
> But yes, could definitely work in a seperate pickup, basslines on the lower frets context.
> 
> I wrote on your profile yesterday by the way - how come you didn't get on with the Hunter guitar?



Sent you a reply (for some reason i never get visitor messages updates)..basically i needed a longer bass scale length, otherwise it was an awesome guitar.


----------



## capone1 (Dec 29, 2011)

Following this. Very curious about Oni's reveal there.


----------



## jonajon91 (Jan 14, 2013)

dpm said:


> OK, just did a quick drawing... what I'm thinking is that curving the frets probably won't help with the overall ergonomic issues of 2.5" scale differences, but it might help with one thing that has been bugging me - I find that on multiscale boards the angle of the frets above 15 or so a little uncomfortable. Curving the frets but keeping the roughly the same scale difference from bass to treble might be a real help here (ie. reducing the scale of the middle strings. For this drawing I increased the difference between each pair of strings by 1.5 do get the next string's scale, starting with a 2mm difference, so it's -
> 
> 680mm
> 682mm - 2mm increase
> ...



ha, I was just wondering where I saw the picture of the guitar with curved frets. It was on your website! you freaking did this man!

aarrrghh!! you're so cool!!!!!!


----------

