• 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.

Even fretless fingerboard levelling tips

If you use a a radius block on a flat piece of wood that tapers end to end, doesn't that guarentee a board that tapers in height along the edges? At the nut end, the edges are closer to the center of the radius, and therefore higher than the edges at the heel end. This can be ground back to level on the frets, but should it be? At what radius do these effects become negligible?

Yes, like JustForSport said, If you want the fingerboard to have a constant thickness along the edge, then the thickness at the center of the fingerboard has to taper, getting thinner towards the nut. The reason is because the fingerboard tapers in width. This applies to both cylindrical and conical (aka compound radius) fingerboards. A conical radius fingerboard will need less taper in thickness to keep the edges constant thickness.

Most of the necks that I build, for my own basses and for my clients, are cylindrical. I usually split the difference in the final cut. The fingerboard tapers a little bit in centerline thickness, from about 0.220" at the heel to about 0.190" at the nut. The edges have a small taper, getting thinner towards the heel. But you can do whatever you like. If an equal edge thickness is important to you, then you can cut it to have more centerline taper, and adjust the thickness profile of the neck itself.

Is sanding a conical board really necessary on something like a 10" radius?

My own opinion is that cylindrical fingerboards are fine for most electric basses. I've never understood the rationale for a conical (compound radius) fingerboard on a bass, unless you are playing it like a lead guitar with radical bending at the high end. Do you do radical side bending on a fretless bass? I don't. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having a conical fingerboard. Some players like them just for the feel.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question? Are you asking whether "hourglass sanding" is really necessary on a 10" radius fingerboard? Remember that the hourglass trim is not the same thing as a conical trim. Well, how precise do you need the fingerboard surface to be? How low do you want to run the action? The flatter the fingerboard radius is, the less important the hourglass sanding becomes. A 10" radius is enough that I would do it.
 
Awesome, thanks @Bruce Johnson !

OK, with your indulgence, let's delve yet a little deeper. :)

With the correct taper to radius-transition relation, no hourglass reshaping is required.

My back-of-a-napkin drawing says that (assuming string paths follow the board taper) a board with a taper of 1.5" at the nut to 2.5" at the 24th fret and a compound radius from 10" to 28" (at the nut and 24th, respectively) should be pretty close. I did not do the math, so I may be off on this. :eyebrow:

This should (in my mind) also make the height of the side of the fingerboard equal across its length.

Am I on the right track here?

Is this radius-transition too radical for practical purposes or playability reasons?

Thanks again.

Did you see Suraj's post above (#52)? That's what he was drawing out, finding the point where a conical radius matches the string spacing taper, so that no hourglass shaping is needed. I haven't gone through the drawing geometry myself, but your numbers look about right. That's a pretty radical conical shape, probably not comfortable or practical. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be radical.
 
Really appreciate the patience and clarity @Bruce Johnson (and others), thanks for taking the time.

Did you see Suraj's post above (#52)? That's what he was drawing out, finding the point where a conical radius matches the string spacing taper, so that no hourglass shaping is needed. I haven't gone through the drawing geometry myself, but your numbers look about right. That's a pretty radical conical shape, probably not comfortable or practical. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be radical.
I did see post #52, and Suraj's other diagrams (although, I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around some aspects of that second figure in #52). It's very helpful to visualize the concept. This has been a great theoretical exercise, I wanted to push it through to its conclusion and see with what kind of radius-transition we could end up. You're right, 10-28" is probably weird; and the effect inconsequential, because a little hourglass sanding would level the string paths and the tapering height of the side of the fingerboard can be compensated for by tapering the height of the center of the board (as explained above - in effect creating a slight back-angle in the neck). But I'm still kinda curious to see/feel it. Perhaps I'll try my hand at a "radical radius" one day, for $#!t$ and giggles...

:bassist:

My own opinion is that cylindrical fingerboards are fine for most electric basses. I've never understood the rationale for a conical (compound radius) fingerboard on a bass, unless you are playing it like a lead guitar with radical bending at the high end. Do you do radical side bending on a fretless bass? I don't. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having a conical fingerboard. Some players like them just for the feel.
I agree that a compound/conical board on a standard configuration bass would seem to be more about preference than practicality. I can imagine that basses with extreme neck taper, tight string-spacing and/or high string-numbers could benefit from the compensation in string-path-width that a conical board provides.
 
Great thread! Kudos to everyone's input. I have a 5 string fretless, ebony board w markers. There is one note the warbles...the C on the D string (10th marker).
It's almost like it (pardon the pun) frets out.
The rest of the fingerboard seems pretty level.
I was looking at Stew Macs site at their fingerboard levelers Invalid Link Removed
Depending on what a great local repairman (I live in Nashville) would charge, or I could buy the 16" or 24" and do the work myself (I am handy).
I'm sure that there is minimal material to be removed, maybe it could be repaired with an orbital sander??
 
Someone needs to step up and answer you! Okay, I will...

No, don't try to use an orbital sander to surface a fretless fingerboard. Unless you really know what you are doing, that's a sure way to create dips and lumps.

The surface needs to be trued up with a long firm block with sandpaper on it. It doesn't have to be the full length of the fingerboard. A 12" long block is fine. Flat on the bottom, not radiused. And it only needs to be maybe an inch wide. Many folks use a small aluminum level. Or a length of aluminum bar stock, or a trued-up block of maple. As long as it's rigid and flat, and you can fasten a strip of sandpaper to it.

To back up a bit, we're talking about finely truing up a fretless fingerboard. If you are rough shaping the radius on a new board, then a shorter, wider radius-bottom block can be helpful. You don't need a radius block to shape a radius, but it can make things easier.

To true up a fingerboard, you are concentrating on sanding the string paths, those 1/4" wide strips of wood that are directly under each string, all the way down the board. Those narrow strips need to be flat, with no lumps or dips. We discussed the geometry earlier in this thread in mind-numbing detail. But the net result of all that is that the narrow strips right under each string need to be flat.
 
Someone needs to step up and answer you! Okay, I will...

No, don't try to use an orbital sander to surface a fretless fingerboard. Unless you really know what you are doing, that's a sure way to create dips and lumps.

The surface needs to be trued up with a long firm block with sandpaper on it. It doesn't have to be the full length of the fingerboard. A 12" long block is fine. Flat on the bottom, not radiused. And it only needs to be maybe an inch wide. Many folks use a small aluminum level. Or a length of aluminum bar stock, or a trued-up block of maple. As long as it's rigid and flat, and you can fasten a strip of sandpaper to it.

To back up a bit, we're talking about finely truing up a fretless fingerboard. If you are rough shaping the radius on a new board, then a shorter, wider radius-bottom block can be helpful. You don't need a radius block to shape a radius, but it can make things easier.

To true up a fingerboard, you are concentrating on sanding the string paths, those 1/4" wide strips of wood that are directly under each string, all the way down the board. Those narrow strips need to be flat, with no lumps or dips. We discussed the geometry earlier in this thread in mind-numbing detail. But the net result of all that is that the narrow strips right under each string need to be flat.
Thanks so much for your response!I did buy a aluminum bar, now what grit should I start with? It is, just as you stated, trueing up the fingerboard, fine tuning
 
I usually start with 400 grit. Coarser grit will make deep scratches, and then you'd have to take off a lot of wood to get those scratches out. Take a few light strokes down the string paths with the 400 and look carefully to see where the paper is cutting and where it isn't. That will show you where the high and low spots are, and give you an idea how much wood needs to be taken off to get it level. If you find some deep dips, you can back up to 220 or even 150 grit to speed it up. But then you have to work back up to 400.

Once the string paths are reading flat with 400, then you can continue with the 400, smoothing and blending the areas between the string paths. But be careful not to damage the string paths that you've already leveled. Once the whole surface is trued and smooth with 400, it's a matter of bringing it all up to a polish. For ebony and other hard woods, I go to 800 on a firm rubber block, followed by gray Scotchbrite and white Scotchbrite.
 
I was browsing this thread just for some tips, and might I say it is a tremendous wealth of information. I knew that fingerboards needed to be conical on uprights and for extreme low action, but it seems it's beneficial in all cases. Imagine my surprise to find that the thread's recently been active!

I recently defretted an old Japanese Jazz Bass Special neck, and am relatively satisfied with the results, but I wish I could get the action a bit lower (so as to be more seamless when switching between it and my fretted EBMM Sterling, it's totally low enough as it stands to play well and sound good) without it 'fretting out' on the D and G above the 8-10th fret or so.

I know it's been explained ad nauseum, but let me make sure I understand what I have yet to do to get it really sweet: Remove neck and truss rod it as flat as it'll go. Re-level to factory radius (I suspect a high spot around the octave or so under string tension, I might just go from, say, 10th-20th and leave the rest alone), probably no more than a few thousandths off. I'm going to leave the fingerboard a constant radius, because that's what I'm used to. At that point, I'll put some stickum 320-grit on a 12" aluminum beam level and make some slow, careful passes along the imaginary line the strings follow until it's dead flat at each string, feather the lines into the radius til it's not visible, and repeat with 600, 800, and 00 steel wool. If I do what I've just described, will I or will I not make an ass of myself?

I'm confident I understand correctly, but I'm new to this kind of work and want to be dead-nuts certain. I'm proud of my work and would be let down if I had to take it to someone else, and frankly don't know of anyone else in town any better-qualified than I am, haha! Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it will be easier if you take the neck off, plus you won't accidentally sand the body! I put it on a work table and used a lamp and an aluminum straight edge to adjust the truss rod to straighten the fingerboard as straight as possible.

I then clamped the neck down and put 320 sandpaper on the ground flat aluminum bar (stew mac, truefret make these) and went slowly at first just to see how much it cut. It also help to mark up the fingerboard....pencil or chalk...I used a white pencil. Then you can see the path that you are sanding.

I put the neck back on and restrung and tested...better. But it still needed a little more...rinse and repeat.

After you get to where you need to be follow with 800 or 1000 and steel wool or equivalent.

Thanks to everyone who posted!
 
To true up a fingerboard, you are concentrating on sanding the string paths, those 1/4" wide strips of wood that are directly under each string, all the way down the board. Those narrow strips need to be flat, with no lumps or dips. We discussed the geometry earlier in this thread in mind-numbing detail. But the net result of all that is that the narrow strips right under each string need to be flat.

Yes, this is what needs to be done. You are wanting to remove the minimum of material, and are primarily trying to remove the dips between where the frets were. What I did on my fretless ebony board is clean the board, then rub it with the side of a stick of chalk. The bulk of the chalk removed quickly and any low spots were clearly visible after blowing away the dust. Granted my fretless board was flat and it was easier, but you're doing the same thing while focusing along the string paths.
 
Oh, and as long as I have the ears (eyes?) of qualified fretless experts, one more thing: I reshaped my nut (making a new one would've been pretty difficult as I don't have a good workspace with a little vise), and cut the slots from .014" (G) to .020" (E) above the fingerboard, in .002" increments. I saw some guys were doing it at like .005"-.010", but that seemed crazy low to me. Do my measurements sound pretty reasonable? I like what I'd call a low action, but not so low as to prevent me from digging in to get a good bark. As I said, the action's already as low as or lower than most of my bass player friends' setups, just a shade higher than how I want it.
 
I saw some guys were doing it at like .005"-.010", but that seemed crazy low to me..

Some people want the open string to sound the same as a fingered position string. This is why the crazy low, low enough for the open string to mwah against the finger board at the nut end.
I'm about to clean up my VM jazz fretless - buzzing from the markers not being flush. So a great thread.
 
Great thread.

I had a fretless board levelled (by a top pro) after 20 years of solid playing with roundwounds. Totally changed the feel - like somebody stole my favourite comfy old jeans and replaced them with a new stiff jeans of a different brand. Hardly played it after that so I sold it.

Just yesterday I bought a fretless that has a neck that 'feels like home'. I'll stick with flats (it came with chromes) from now on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bass nitro
I think this discussion is getting confusing because you guys are missing one element. I'll try my hand at explaining the geometry here:

First, a normal, typical bass fingerboard is cylindrical. That is, it has the same radius at the nut as at the heel.

However, as described above, the strings aren't parallel. They are closer together at the nut than they are at the bridge. Even though the radius of the undersides of the strings may be the same at the nut as at the bridge, the underside of the strings actually describe a slightly different shape than a cylinder.

The strings going right down the center of the fingerboard will be true. That is, if you lay a straightedge down the centerline of a normal cylindrical fingerboard, it will lay flat. However, as you move the straightedge off to the side at an angle to the centerline, following the actual paths of the outboard strings, you'll find that the center will be high. The straightedge will rock on a high spot in the center, as if the neck were backbowed. The further off-angle to the centerline you go, the worse this condition will be. Also, the smaller the fingerboard radius (rounder) is, the worse it will be. If you cut the fingerboard to a pure cylinder, you'll end up with high-spot buzzing on the outboard strings, but not the center strings.

So how do you trim the surface of a cylindrical fingerboard to correct for this problem? The process is just like Musiclogic described above; you level-file right along the actual string paths, blending in between them. This process is often called "conical filing", but it isn't really forming a cone shape. That's what gets confusing. It's actually forming a slight "hourglass" shape. The radiuses at either end of the fingerboard are untouched. You are trimming away wood at the middle of the fingerboard (lengthwise), but only on either side of the centerline. So, the radiuses at the nut and the heel may be 12", but the radius at the 7th fret will be slightly less, like 11 3/4". I prefer to call this "hourglass filing" to minimize the confusion.

On a fingerboard that has been properly "hourglass filed" like this, a straightedge placed along all of the string paths will be dead flat. When the straightedge is placed parallel to the centerline, but off to either side of center, there will be a slight gap under the middle, a "relief". But, down the center, there's no gap. This is where owners often get really confused when trying to check the relief and adjust the truss rod. A high quality, hourglass-filed fingerboard can give you confusing relief readings if you don't understand what you are looking for.

If you want to get really technical, the real mathematical description of this hourglass-filed fingerboard is.....wait for it.....an offset hyperbolic paraboloid! I'm sure that brings back some frightening memories from your school days. Picture an hourglass, where you take the narrow waist and push it off to the side enough that one side becomes straight. That's what an "hourglass-filed" fingerboard looks like. The centerline of the fingerboard is right on that straight side. The further off to either side you go, the more hourglass-shaped it becomes. Try not to get a headache.

So, how does this relate to compound radius fingerboards? A "compound radius" fingerboard is just another term for a conical-shaped fingerboard. That is, the radius is larger at the heel than it is at the nut. The surface is a section of a cone. Basically, the more conical you make the fingerboard shape, the less need there will be for the "hourglass filing" correction. There is a point where the surface becomes conical enough that no hourglass filing is needed. However, most commercial compound radius fingerboards aren't that radical, and still need a little bit of correction to make them flat along the string paths.

What confuses things even more is that instruments built with compound radius fingerboards often also use a flatter radius on the bridge than on the nut. So, the underside of the strings are also on a conical shape, but they still aren't parallel, so the fingerboard surface still ends up needing some hourglass-filing correction. Don't hurt yourself picturing that one.

How does this relate to frets? Exactly the same way. A really good fretjob has this hourglass-filing correction as part of it. The typical process involves using a straight file or diamond stick or oilstone, working along the string paths and blending in between. Leveling frets with sandpaper on a radius block is only a way of roughing them in. It takes an extra step to make them really true for the strings.

Let me repeat: All of this hourglass-filing stuff becomes less noticeable and necessary as the fingerboard radius gets flatter (larger radius). A flat fingerboard doesn't have this effect at all. That's one of the reasons why manufacturers and builders like to go with flatter fingerboards; it's less complicated. I personally like to build my basses with very round fingerboards, from 7 1/4" to 4" radius. At a 4" radius, all of these geometry issues become much more obvious. That's why I've spent the time working with them and trying to understand them.

I hope this helps clarify the discussion?

Beautiful explanation.

It should be mentioned though, that the actual size of the outer string path "hump" is only on the order of one or two thousanths of an inch for a 34" scale bass with common radii and string spacing.

This "hump" might be significant with a dead straight neck, but would be virtually lost with the 0.010" to 0.015" of common relief.

-
 
Last edited:
On a 7 1/4" radius fingerboard, the "hump" under the outboard strings is in the range of 0.010". On a 12" radius fingerboard, it's around 0.002-0.003". That doesn't sound like much, but it's enough to cause the buzz or Mwah to be uneven.

When you loosen the truss rod to add some relief, that somewhat flattens out the humps under the outboard strings. But then the center strings have more relief than the outboard strings.

In my experience, doing this "hourglass" trim is very important on a 7 1/4" (or smaller) radius fingerboard. Mildly important on a 9", noticeable on a 12", not really noticeable on 14" or flatter.
 
Oh, and as long as I have the ears (eyes?) of qualified fretless experts, one more thing: I reshaped my nut (making a new one would've been pretty difficult as I don't have a good workspace with a little vise), and cut the slots from .014" (G) to .020" (E) above the fingerboard, in .002" increments. I saw some guys were doing it at like .005"-.010", but that seemed crazy low to me. Do my measurements sound pretty reasonable? I like what I'd call a low action, but not so low as to prevent me from digging in to get a good bark. As I said, the action's already as low as or lower than most of my bass player friends' setups, just a shade higher than how I want it.

Your numbers sound good to me. On my fretless basses, I use a little ebony "zero block", sort of the equivalent of a zero fret. I trim the height of the zero block to 0.015" to 0.020" above the fingerboard surface. That seems about right to me, in the amount of force it takes to push the string down at the 1st position. Lower than that, and the touch is too light. I like to have some small bit of feel of when I'm pushing the string down at the 1st.
 
Some people want the open string to sound the same as a fingered position string. This is why the crazy low, low enough for the open string to mwah against the finger board at the nut end.
I'm about to clean up my VM jazz fretless - buzzing from the markers not being flush. So a great thread.

I've been wanting the open strings to sound the same as the fingered notes. The bass already has a rosewood nut, but the open strings are still a long ways from the fingered notes.

That's all it takes, lower the slots to that tolerance? I'd been thinking I need maybe a slightly radiused rosewood block so the string falls away ever so slightly from the proper location, and a separate string guide to keep the strings at the right spacing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: togril
Your numbers sound good to me. On my fretless basses, I use a little ebony "zero block", sort of the equivalent of a zero fret. I trim the height of the zero block to 0.015" to 0.020" above the fingerboard surface. That seems about right to me, in the amount of force it takes to push the string down at the 1st position. Lower than that, and the touch is too light. I like to have some small bit of feel of when I'm pushing the string down at the 1st.
Bruce, I'm guessing that you've tried bringing that "zero block" down to even with the fretboard, in order to get similar timbre on the open strings as on the stopped notes. If so, what did you find?
 
  • Like
Reactions: togril