• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

7.25" Fretboard Radius

how is that done? by changing just the frets?

Yes, just taking the crowns down: on the 9.5" board the difference in height between the middle and ends of the 21st fret is about 0.25mm, slightly less at the nut end. On the fretless it's just a case or removing more wood towards the heel. I thought about going compound 12" - 15" on the fretless, but that would have meant taking away too much wood (getting on for 0.8mm) from an already very shallow (back to front) neck, so I just went 12" simple radius.
 
There are genuine geometric problems with a smaller radius (particulary when combined with highly tapered necks such as the typical Jazz bass) which make it difficult to get a consistently low playing action along the entire length of the fingerboard. If you imagine the strings running along the sides of a long slim (7.5" radius) cylinder. Place them closer together at one (nut) and and further apart at the other (bridge) and they will drift away from the surface as they approach the bridge - that is to say the action gets higher as you move up the neck. Lower the action and they start to wrap around the cylinder. To get them down again you have to raise the nut slots, lower the bridge and introduce excessive relief, all of which compromise playability. Flatter fingerboards (thicker cylinder) and wider nuts mitigate this issue to some degree. Compound radius fingerboards which gets flatter as you go up the neck and are more like a cone section can totally solve the issue leading to greater playability across the entire neck.

YMMV
Yeah, my mileage varies from that. Never felt this to be an issue, narrow nut and 7.25 curved fretboard just fit my hand. Action is fine with this. Different strokes, as they say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HP Hovercraft
I'm sure it all comes down to individual preference. I've always heard smaller radius is better for chord playing, and larger radius is better for individual note playing. But, of all my basses, all are 9.5" except for my Peavey, which is 12". I don't feel any difference between them.

You have to play past the 5th fret to notice:) of course I kid just came to me
 
All of the Fender basses and guitars used the 7.25" radius until about the mid-80's where it changed to 9.5" radius. My first "good bass" was a 1965 Jazz that I bought in 1966. Played it in high school and some college and then toured using it for three years across the mid-west and western US playing 5-nights a week, 50-weeks a year. Was a great bass and I got real used to that narrow and slim neck with 7.25" radius. After coming off tour I still played it for weekend gigs. Then all my touring gear got stolen including my '65 Jazz in 1976. I didn't really have the money to replace it working a "normal" job with a wife and 2 kids. Nonetheless, I was on the lookout for another Jazz that had that "60's slim C-shape neck with a 7.25" radius". Couldn't find one anywhere. Found all the Jazz basses seemed to have that same width at the nut (just under 1½") but none of them were slim. They were all thick necks what I refer to as fat necks.

Then in 1985 while working part-time at a music store while back at college, someone brought in my current bass as a trade-in. When I played it, it felt like coming home. so I bought it and have played it for the last 36-years. I didn't buy it because it had the 70's-era pickup spacing (4" center to center), or because it was Olympic white, or because it had a white bound maple neck. I bought it because the neck shape, profile AND radius was the same as my 1965 Jazz. Most people thing there's not much difference between a 7.25" radius and a 9.5" radius, but the difference of course is that the 9.5" radius is flatter across its width than 7.25" radius. They can be made the same width and still have a different radius. When I pickup a bass with that radius, it just feels off to me...so I don't play one with that radius.

If you can find a Jazz with that "60's slim C-shape neck with a 7.25" radius", pick it up and play it. You'll find that it is extremely comfortable to play and really is a very "fast" neck. You can't get one from Fender USA now unless you have it custom built. However there were a number of MIM Jazz basses that were made with that neck and their re-issues of the 62 and 60's basses do have that neck. The re-issues from Fender US do not have that neck on them, which is really a sad state of affairs. They pronounce how this has all the original features on it and then go and put a modern Jazz neck on it. That neck is what determines the playability of the bass...OK, I'll stop. I'm just ranting now. See if you can find a Jazz with that "60's slim C-shape neck with a 7.25" radius" and give it a try. I think you'll see in an instant what I mean.
I completely agree 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rip Van Dan
Thanks! Very interesting. I have a Squier Classic Vibe '60s Jazz, but alas the neck radius is 9.5". I'd like to replace it .... I see that Fender's Flea Jazz Bass has the following specs:
  • Maple neck with “C”-shaped profile and 1.5” nut width; Road Worn nitrocellulose lacquer finish on back of the neck
  • 7.25”-radius rosewood fingerboard with 20 vintage-style frets
That one sound good to me. It would be better yet if it was the 60's Slim C-shape neck on that 7.25" radius.
 

Latest posts