Novak Multiscale Patent "Superceded"

[pilotjones]

In light of Sheldon's post (and I completely respect Sheldon and his position, stated or unstated), let me say a few things:

1. I started this thread to discuss the new patent. I think that this is a valid and significant discussion. It was not intended as a "bash."
2. I have made some statements as to what I believe each of the patents covers, and does not cover. These are my interpretations, which are opinions.
2a. I invite anyone interested in the subject matter to look up the patents themselves (that's why I have provided links), do some geometry, look up patent law (it's available on uspto.gov), etc.
3. I have stated that the Novak patent, if followed per the patent, results in wrong fret placement. This is provable, is in fact proven in the Booker patent, and I stand by the statement.
3a. It is very unfortunate that Sheldon is getting misapplied backlash as a result. My belief is that in essence, he does not follow the patent (and therefore comes up with a proper fretboard). I would buy a Dingwall today if I had the money. My opinion is that any backlash should rightfully go somewhere else.
4. I have no enmity for Mr. Novak. There are some things I respect him for, and some I am not sure of. Unfortunately, he declined to answer my email when I discovered the patent problem, so I have had no conversation with him. (Before I knew that anyone else knew about the patent problem, and before I ever mentioned it online, I emailed him first with my findings and with questions. Cordially, respectfully, professionally, non-accusatorily, etc.)

 

[lomo]

Just want to chime in and say I tested my Dingwall Afterburner 5, Zon Sonus, Fender V. Bailey and Rob Allen Fretless extensively with a strobe tuner.......it confirmed what my ears already told me, that my Afterburner is more in tune than any of my other basses. I'm neither mathematician nor luthier, and I don't know (or care) how Sheldon does it; I'm just glad he does!

 

[Mark_L]

I've owned a strobe tuner for about 25 years, and have done my own setup for longer than that. The strobe tuner is very accurate, of course, but even when you have it set to the best visual tuning you can get, it still moves some, minute amounts, but it is never perfectly stable, and that's because of the many physical variables involved- the flexibility of the wood, temperature, how firmly you fret the string, etc. These variables apply to all non-electronic instruments- horns, strings, percussion. It's natural and a key part of the overall sound and timbre of "natural" instruments. That's why sequenced parts sound so sterile and lifeless- they lack that variability and the notes are played the same way every time.

Then there's the perceptual limits of the brain/human hearing to consider. They are sensitive, but only to a point. I'll write a check to the first person that proves to me they can detect a 1cent difference in pitch. You're talking about a tiny point on the string coming in contact with a tiny point on the fret, all at a certain point to produce a pitch. How much more can the basic concept be improved upon, at least where we can perceive it with our limited receptors?


This guy is blowing smoke. I personally think the patent on multi-scale is bogus anyway (no offense, Ralph, Sheldon ), since the concept is hundreds of years old.

My Dingwalls rule, that's all I need to know


Mark

 

[Paul M]

Novak's method results in HUGE errors (like half a semitone!!) if used on a normal, non-parallel-string instrument.

Half a semitone!? That would sound like a cheap copy of a Hofner Beatle Bass with a really bad set up. Somebody reading this thread may be misled into believing that any bass with the Novak method must be this awfull.

I own a Dingwall bass and Dingwall basses use a version of the Novak method. But anybody who has ever played a Dingwall knows why they are famous for the accuracy of their intonation, among many other great qualities. They're far more accurate than any conventional bass.

If the Novak method is really that bad and it's patent is not valid, and being that Dingwall basses really are that good, I think Dingwall should should divorce itself of any relationship with the Novak name.

I realize there a probably legal complications for doing this but I just want every one reading this to know that Novak and Dingwall are not the same thing.

 

[greenboy]

Anybody listening to Charlie Hunter would realize there is no tuning problem with a Novak-built instrument, and that says that the Novax concept is working on guitars as well as basses. I doubt Sheldon would imply that any distance should be gained with such nonsense. In fact he gives credit where credit is due. Time to put the brand-name zealotry aside.

 

[greenboy]

I suffered through the "patentenese" for awhile before deciding to ask why nobody has noticed this about non-fanned necks: they usually don't have parallel strings either - and that long-accepted approach introduces minute variations in scale length (outer strings longer than one in center) ... and yet standard straight-across straight-frets placement doesn't seem to be considered a string-to-string issue there.

Hmmm.

 

[pilotjones]

I suffered through the "patentenese" for awhile before deciding to ask why nobody has noticed this about non-fanned necks: they usually don't have parallel strings either - and that long-accepted approach introduces minute variations in scale length (outer strings longer than one in center) ... and yet standard straight-across straight-frets placement doesn't seem to be considered a string-to-string issue there.

Hmmm.

Wrong. If you keep the frets parallel, you can fan the strings as much as you want, due to the principle of similar triangles. If you keep the the strings parallel, you can fan the frets as much as you want, converging to a point, due to the principle of similar triangles. If you simply fan both (frets still converging to a point), similar triangles no longer apply, and the frets are in the wrong place / at the wrong angle. You can, of course, have both spreading frets and strings--by using two scales for the outer strings-- but this is not Novak's patent claim, as I read it. Sheldon Dingwall does it all day long. It is also what was done on the ancient multiscale instruments.

 

[greenboy]

Yeah, I didn't think that bit through well, did I? ; }

 

[pilotjones]

Half a semitone!? That would sound like a cheap copy of a Hofner Beatle Bass with a really bad set up. Somebody reading this thread may be misled into believing that any bass with the Novak method must be this awfull.

I hope not. The point is that people aren't following the Novak patent claims, they are doing what works.

When you license the patent from Novak, he gives you vague instructions on making a fretboard with two scales at the outer strings. He does not give you instructions that follow the language of patent that you are licensing. Which is good, since it doesn't work.

I own a Dingwall bass and Dingwall basses use a version of the Novak method.

Not really, as stated above. I'd prefer to call it a version of the orpharion/cittern method.

But anybody who has ever played a Dingwall knows why they are famous for the accuracy of their intonation,

Agreed.

among many other great qualities. They're far more accurate than any conventional bass.

If the Novak method is really that bad and it's patent is not valid, and being that Dingwall basses really are that good, I think Dingwall should should divorce itself of any relationship with the Novak name.

That's the kind of statement that I'm not willing to make, one way or the other.

Each luthier makes his own choices. I do know for a fact that there's at least one luthier out there who knows that the patent is flawed, who has doubts as the Novak's right to license it, and yet who pays the fee to avoid legal trouble that he cannot afford. If I were producing basses, I might be doing the same.

I realize there a probably legal complications for doing this but I just want every one reading this to know that Novak and Dingwall are not the same thing.

Two years until the Novak patent expires, and this becomes a moot point.

 

[pilotjones]

Yeah, I didn't think that bit through well, did I? ; }

That's OK. Not many people remember 10th year geometry and the properties of two parallel lines transected by a third line.

 

[greenboy]

Well, I just overlooked something I am still somewhat cognizant of (and was even dealing with just weeks ago on a speaker cab design). As we've seen on forums this can lead to all kinds of craziness unless people are willing to admit to either their mistakes or their ignorance.

 

[Sheldon D.]

I hope I didn't come across as pointing fingers at anyone in my last post. Just expressing opinions and doing a little bit of damage control.

Peter, I've always appreciated your well thought out and no BS input.

 

[pilotjones]

Not to get silly, but I've always appreciated Sheldon's well thought out and no BS basses.


I'm glad, and appreciative, of the fact we've been able to have some intelligent discussion here on TB, without over-reaction in either the name-calling/adversarial/juvenile direction, or in the fear-driven/censorship direction.


So, what I'm thinking now is, let's say a person is one of those who think the patent is bad, the licensing should not be necessary, but who also would rather play it safe and pay the $75 in case they're wrong, not to mention that it gets them the right to put a sticker on it that says "US PAT# 4,852,450" which might have some minor sales value. What happens in two years? Maybe people are better informed, and don't even approach Booker?

 

[Mike Doolin]

Hi all, Mike Doolin here, posting for the first time. I've done 4 or 5 fanned-fret guitars to date, using the "connect the points" method via a mechanical strategy I came up with. You can see how I do it at [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]. They always strobe out as well as my straight fret guitars, so I've been blithely going about my occasional fanned-fret business and not thinking too hard about all this. But the claim above that the Novax method could produce frets half a semitone off made me reach for my pocket calculator.

It happens I'm about to make another one, this time a 6-string guitar with 25" and 27" scales and the 7th fret perpendicular. So, I calculated the angle of the nut and 24th fret, their distance from the 7th fret, and the point of convergence of the three. I based the calculations on the width of the 7th fret, 2", with a nut width of 1.75" and 24th fret width of 2.5". I got a nut angle of 18.4 degrees and 24th fret angle of 22.7 degrees. The 7th fret is 8.980" from the nut and 11.270" from the 24th fret on the 27" scale side. Run the trig on those, and the nut line hits the 7th fret line 26.967" out, while the 24th fret line hits the 7th fret line 26.962" out. That's a discrepancy of .005", well within the tolerance of tangents to 3 decimals, so I conclude from that that two different scales, parallel to one another, do indeed converge on one point.

OK, but what does happen when you taper the fretboard? The strings are 1/4" inset at the nut and 1/16" outside at the 24th fret, relative to the 2" width of the 7th fret from which I calculated all this. Running the trig on those distances, the low E is .083" shorter at the nut and .026" longer at the 24th fret; conversely, the high E is .083" longer at the nut and .026" shorter at the 24th fret. Converting those distances to cents, the nut is 5.75 cents off and the 24th fret is 6.81 cents off. Those amounts are cumulative since the stretch is going opposite direction on each string, so the total error from nut to 24th fret is 12.56 cents.

Now, 12 and a half cents is significant to be sure, most people will hear that. But that is the worst case scenario, the outside strings at the ends of their ranges, so the error will be distributed across all the strings, getting smaller and smaller as you get closer to the 7th fret on the middle strings. More importantly, it ain't no half a semitone!

All of this is assuming you laid out your fretboard with two scales on either side of a rectangular blank, cut the slots, and then tapered the board. If you taper first, then lay out the slots, everything should be fine. I've always done the latter, probably just intuiting that it was the way to do it. But I was about to cut my current fretboard the first way, because of a convenience of fret scales I have in stock. I'm glad I read this thread and ran the numbers, because now I'll stick to the "taper first" method.

 

[pilotjones]

Hi all, Mike Doolin here, posting for the first time.

Hi Mike! Welcome to TB.

I've done 4 or 5 fanned-fret guitars to date, using the "connect the points" method via a mechanical strategy I came up with. You can see how I do it at [Invalid or Expired Link Removed].

I've been on your page before, since it's linked to by the Novax site. Funny how he recommends following your instructions, even though they don't follow the patent claims! Of course, he does this because it results in a good fretboard.

They always strobe out as well as my straight fret guitars, so I've been blithely going about my occasional fanned-fret business and not thinking too hard about all this. But the claim above that the Novax method could produce frets half a semitone off made me reach for my pocket calculator.

It happens I'm about to make another one, this time a 6-string guitar with 25" and 27" scales and the 7th fret perpendicular. So, I calculated the angle of the nut and 24th fret, their distance from the 7th fret, and the point of convergence of the three. I based the calculations on the width of the 7th fret, 2", with a nut width of 1.75" and 24th fret width of 2.5". I got a nut angle of 18.4 degrees and 24th fret angle of 22.7 degrees. The 7th fret is 8.980" from the nut and 11.270" from the 24th fret on the 27" scale side. Run the trig on those, and the nut line hits the 7th fret line 26.967" out, while the 24th fret line hits the 7th fret line 26.962" out. That's a discrepancy of .005", well within the tolerance of tangents to 3 decimals, so I conclude from that that two different scales, parallel to one another, do indeed converge on one point.

OK, but what does happen when you taper the fretboard? The strings are 1/4" inset at the nut and 1/16" outside at the 24th fret, relative to the 2" width of the 7th fret from which I calculated all this. Running the trig on those distances, the low E is .083" shorter at the nut and .026" longer at the 24th fret; conversely, the high E is .083" longer at the nut and .026" shorter at the 24th fret. Converting those distances to cents, the nut is 5.75 cents off and the 24th fret is 6.81 cents off. Those amounts are cumulative since the stretch is going opposite direction on each string, so the total error from nut to 24th fret is 12.56 cents.

Now, 12 and a half cents is significant to be sure, most people will hear that. But that is the worst case scenario, the outside strings at the ends of their ranges, so the error will be distributed across all the strings, getting smaller and smaller as you get closer to the 7th fret on the middle strings. More importantly, it ain't no half a semitone!

All of this is assuming you laid out your fretboard with two scales on either side of a rectangular blank, cut the slots, and then tapered the board. If you taper first, then lay out the slots, everything should be fine. I've always done the latter, probably just intuiting that it was the way to do it. But I was about to cut my current fretboard the first way, because of a convenience of fret scales I have in stock. I'm glad I read this thread and ran the numbers, because now I'll stick to the "taper first" method.

And the thing is, the greater the difference in scales is, and the greater the difference in nut and bridge width is, the worse the error will be. On a 5-string bass with 3" difference in scales, and 1.5" string-centers width at the nut and 3.0" at the bridge, the error is twice what it is on the guitar you just mentioned.



There's another technicality of fanning that I've never mentioned here, but which I've discussed with a few luthiers. It concerns string spacing.

Laying out the frets by putting the two scales along the tapered outer strings does result in perfect fret placement. But this is contingent on a further condition: that the ends of the strings are proportionally spaced, with respect to the inner and outer strings (and scales), at the nut and bridge (and consequently along their lengths).
So, to achieve this, if the string centers are evenly spaced at the bridge, to be perfect, they must be evenly spaced at the nut also.
When the strings are even at the bridge, but are uneven (such as equal gaps) at the nut, the inner strings land on a "slanted" path. In a normal fan configuration, this puts the nut end of the strings too close to the treble side. And so the frets "come up short" at the head end of the string.
(Note: this problem does not exist with parallel frets.)

Now, this effect is small. It increases as you go from equal-centers to equal-gaps; and it increases as the variation in string diameters increases. (Both of these factors increase how "angled" the inner strings are.) So, one luthier building a multistring guitar calculated a maximum few cents induced error, and decided to go with keeping the equal-gaps at nut for comfort's sake; it's a great guitar. Another making a fairly small bass, and doing only partial re-spacing at the nut (still close to equal-centers) also had no problem. But another, doing a very large multistring bass, recognised that with the combination of many strings, and a very large variance in string diameters, the inner strings would end up very slanted. I laid it out in CAD and I forget exactly, but I think the induced error was going to be 12 cents. So, he went with equal-centers at the nut, to have no problems.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Hi all, Mike Doolin here, posting for the first time. I've done 4 or 5 fanned-fret guitars to date, using the "connect the points" method via a mechanical strategy I came up with. You can see how I do it at [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]. They always strobe out as well as my straight fret guitars, so I've been blithely going about my occasional fanned-fret business and not thinking too hard about all this. But the claim above that the Novax method could produce frets half a semitone off made me reach for my pocket calculator.

It happens I'm about to make another one, this time a 6-string guitar with 25" and 27" scales and the 7th fret perpendicular. So, I calculated the angle of the nut and 24th fret, their distance from the 7th fret, and the point of convergence of the three. I based the calculations on the width of the 7th fret, 2", with a nut width of 1.75" and 24th fret width of 2.5". I got a nut angle of 18.4 degrees and 24th fret angle of 22.7 degrees. The 7th fret is 8.980" from the nut and 11.270" from the 24th fret on the 27" scale side. Run the trig on those, and the nut line hits the 7th fret line 26.967" out, while the 24th fret line hits the 7th fret line 26.962" out. That's a discrepancy of .005", well within the tolerance of tangents to 3 decimals, so I conclude from that that two different scales, parallel to one another, do indeed converge on one point.

OK, but what does happen when you taper the fretboard? The strings are 1/4" inset at the nut and 1/16" outside at the 24th fret, relative to the 2" width of the 7th fret from which I calculated all this. Running the trig on those distances, the low E is .083" shorter at the nut and .026" longer at the 24th fret; conversely, the high E is .083" longer at the nut and .026" shorter at the 24th fret. Converting those distances to cents, the nut is 5.75 cents off and the 24th fret is 6.81 cents off. Those amounts are cumulative since the stretch is going opposite direction on each string, so the total error from nut to 24th fret is 12.56 cents.

Now, 12 and a half cents is significant to be sure, most people will hear that. But that is the worst case scenario, the outside strings at the ends of their ranges, so the error will be distributed across all the strings, getting smaller and smaller as you get closer to the 7th fret on the middle strings. More importantly, it ain't no half a semitone!

All of this is assuming you laid out your fretboard with two scales on either side of a rectangular blank, cut the slots, and then tapered the board. If you taper first, then lay out the slots, everything should be fine. I've always done the latter, probably just intuiting that it was the way to do it. But I was about to cut my current fretboard the first way, because of a convenience of fret scales I have in stock. I'm glad I read this thread and ran the numbers, because now I'll stick to the "taper first" method.

Hi Mike,
Welcome to Talkbass. I just wanted to say that I love your work. I love the look and the double cutaway is such a great idea!

Cheers,
Geoff

 

[Mike Doolin]

Peter, I meant to appologise for not "talking bass" here and referencing a guitar fretboard instead. I have not built a fanned-fret bass yet, so guitar scales are all I've done. But your point is well taken: more difference between scales, more taper and bigger strings will all increase the errors.

The string spacing issue is also a good one, which I had not thought of. I've been visualizing the strings fanning out across the fretboard, such that the edges of the fretboard and all the strings would converge at a point way out past the headstock, distributing the angles equally. Does that result in correct scales for each string? I'll have to think about that one. But again, the error due to string spacing for guitar string gauges would be much less than for bass string gauges.

 

[pilotjones]

Peter, I meant to appologise for not "talking bass" here and referencing a guitar fretboard instead. I have not built a fanned-fret bass yet, so guitar scales are all I've done. But your point is well taken: more difference between scales, more taper and bigger strings will all increase the errors.

The string spacing issue is also a good one, which I had not thought of.

Not many, if any, people do. But that's not surprising. Consider that Edgren in the 1904 patent forgot to tilt the bridge (!!!), and Novak seems to never have considered the effects of string taper.

I've been visualizing the strings fanning out across the fretboard, such that the edges of the fretboard and all the strings would converge at a point way out past the headstock, distributing the angles equally. Does that result in correct scales for each string? I'll have to think about that one. But again, the error due to string spacing for guitar string gauges would be much less than for bass string gauges.

Good questions- I'll have to try some layouts...

Like you, I had been thinking that the strings converge to a point, but a quick sketch seems to lay that to rest as not true. At least not as I drew it- but I think there is a method that does work that way. That would be, if the strings had equal spacing along two lines perpendicular to the midline near the nut & bridge, rather thanat the nut or bridge.

 

[Phil Mastro]

Like you, I had been thinking that the strings converge to a point, but a quick sketch seems to lay that to rest as not true. At least not as I drew it- but I think there is a method that does work that way. That would be, if the strings had equal spacing along two lines perpendicular to the midline near the nut & bridge, rather thanat the nut or bridge.

From what I can see (in my head at least), if your strings converge to a single point (past the headstock), the string spacing between the end points of the string (nut and bridge saddles), measured perpendicularly from the fretboard centerline should not be constant.
At the bridge, the shorter strings will be closer together, and at the nut, the longer strings will be closer together. This is supposing all lines are the same thickness, and the measures are taken relative to their centerlines.

I usually keep the string spacing constant all around. I do it center to center at the bridge, but edge to center at the nut. So the way I'd make my nut would create some kind of distortion. Not that it would probably be noticeable...

I dunno if this helps. I hope.

 

[pilotjones]

From what I can see (in my head at least), if your strings converge to a single point (past the headstock), the string spacing between the end points of the string (nut and bridge saddles), measured perpendicularly from the fretboard centerline should not be constant.
At the bridge, the shorter strings will be closer together, and at the nut, the longer strings will be closer together. This is supposing all lines are the same thickness, and the measures are taken relative to their centerlines.

I think we are agreeing, without knowing it, sort of.

If the strings converge to a point, and have equal angles between the string lines, they will also have equal spacing along any arbitrary line which is drawn perpendicular to the fretboard centerline (like a standard parallel fret) (my statement). They will also have unequal spacing at the nut or bridge (as you described, but I only alluded to).

I usually keep the string spacing constant all around. I do it center to center at the bridge, but edge to center at the nut. So the way I'd make my nut would create some kind of distortion. Not that it would probably be noticeable...

The good thing is, you can do some geometry or CAD to predict just how off you will be, and then decide whether it is significant or not.