• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Novak Multiscale Patent "Superceded"

#61
Ding! Just posting to keep an eye on this thread.
To be honest I've had a couple of beers and may have already forgotten that some of the following has already been stated. I'll try to make it easy to follow, no B.S. Certainly Peter has a better handle on this stuff than myself and most others.
The inaccuracies of multiscale fretting are caused when a string runs sideways across the board. On most instruments the bridge spacing is equal between centres. At the nut end the spacing is often (usually?, and usually roughly) equal between diameters, ie. equal from the outside of one string to the the outside of the next. This makes things comfortable at the narrower nut area. In this scenario the middle strings actually follow a path slightly sideways across the neck. Not a problem on a parallel fretted 'board.
On a multiscale board, even using the join the dots method, if the string travels across the board the intonation can get quite inaccurate. 4 strings may not produce an inaccuracy worth thinking about. Put 12 strings on a bass, with the huge gauge jump from treble to bass sides, and it becomes very evident.
To solve this one can either space the strings equal between centres at both the nut and bridge; or space them equal between diameters at both the nut and bridge. To some degree this could be compromised and still be acceptable given intonation adjustments, technique etc.
As for the fee, it's $75. Big deal. Work it into the price of the instrument. I doubt anyone would be making multiscale basses and guitars right now if it weren't for a certain someone. If we lived in an ideal world patents wouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in that world.

EDIT. Woops, looks like what's above has just been stated. Oh well, time for another beer :eyebrow:
 
#64
Man, I'd have to draw it up to clarify what's in my head.
By 'equal between diameters' I meant the same thing as 'equal gaps'. Though thinking about it now (at 12am with beer content) I'm wondering if theoretically the string gauge would have to increase along the length of the string to keep things in proportion.
I don't have a problem with equal gaps at both ends. Stops things getting cramped on the bass side.
 
#65
pilotjones said:
The problem is that
- if your strings are not parallel, as is the case with most instruments, then
- only a string along the neck centerline will be intonated properly. The frets for the other strings will be in the wrong place, at the wrong angle.
Click to expand...

I don't built fanned fret basses, and I'm not an expert on the Novax system...

However, this logic seems flawed. As long as each fret is in the proper position under a particular string, and the bridge saddle is where it belongs, then it doesn't matter if the strings are parallel or not. After all, on a "standard" parallel fret instrument, the frets are parallel, but the strings are not.

Now if you bend a string across the angled fret, you may incur errors... but since you are bending a string out of tune anyway, who would notice?

Now what I can't answer is if the Novax system places the frets in the correct position relative to each other, across the neck, and per each scale length, but that's because I'm really not familiar with the system.

Sheldon says he has a method, and I'd bet he does some compensation compared to the Novax patent... and that's his trade secret and we don't need to know that! I'm willing to believe him though. He makes fine instruments.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we use an equal tempered 12 tone scale, and without changing the tempering (i.e., retuning each fret) it's just not possible to get all the notes in tune, because the equal tempered scale is not in tune, except at 5ths and octaves. They fudge this with pianos by using "stretch tuning," but since they have a separately tunable string for each note, that is possible.

People like Buzz Feiten have come up with elaborate systems to compensate with the "flaw" of the Rule of 18 system, but I really feel it's just part of having an equally tempered note system.

But the point is... imagine having a separate fingerboard for each string, and each one has a separate scale length. As long as each of those fingerboards has the frets in the right place, it makes no difference if the strings are parallel or not. I also doubt that angling fret under the string will cause a problem, since they are angled slightly with standard frets anyway. :)
 
#66
pilotjones said:
Not true. Equal centers at the bridge won't do it- you'd have to have the same proportions at nut and bridge-- which, if it were equal gaps at the nut, would be very strange at the bridge.
Click to expand...

Actually, unless I'm misreading something, it's fairly common practice to make a nut that has equal spacing between strings, and is not just the centers of the strings evenly spaced. This is really the preferred way to cut a nut.

I don't see what this has to do with tuning at all though. After all strings on instruments are generally not parallel... the nut is usually narrower than the bridge. This means that on a standard parallel fret instrument, the strings are on an angle compared to the frets. And that doesn't give us intonation problems. :)
 
#67
DavidRavenMoon

I'll just make this condensed reply to the various possibilities you have brought up:

Try it on paper to scale, or on CAD. You will find that the assertions I have made are true. They are provable facts of geometry. I have spoken with several luthiers, who have done this, and found the same results. In fact, the Booker patent even points out that the Novak patent is in error unless the strings are parallel (this has already been pointed out in this thread).

Sheldon and other luthiers simply do not follow the Novax patent. They make a proper fretboard instead.

Again, I urge you to try out the method of the Novak patent on a layout with normally spread strings. It will prevent you from making unsubstantiated, or rather unsubstantiatable, statements.

Also, scale temperament is a topic that is only tangentially related. As is BFTS. Even if you bemoan the "errors" (actually compromises) of 12-TET temperament, or the inability for dead-perfect intonation on an instrument with its strings stretched toward the fretboard (both are real issues), the method of the Novak patent would simply add other large errors to these "errors."
 
#68
pilotjones said:
Sheldon and other luthiers simply do not follow the Novax patent. They make a proper fretboard instead.
Click to expand...

That's what I said. And so did Sheldon. And if the fretboard is proper, it doesn't matter if the strings are not parallel.

Again, I urge you to try out the method of the Novak patent on a layout with normally spread strings. It will prevent you from making unsubstantiated, or rather unsubstantiatable, statements.
Click to expand...

I didn't make any statements other than if the frets are in proper location (Pythagorean scale) the notes will play in tune. I can see that depending on how you angle your frets that some might be off a bit, which is what I was stating. I also said I don't know how Novax says to do it, since it's not something I've ever read up on or tried. I'm happy with straight frets, so I'll continue with those. :) I haven't played a fanned fret bass, but I'm not a big fan of longer than 34" basses anyway.


Also, scale temperament is a topic that is only tangentially related.
Click to expand...

Even on a perfectly fretted guitar, notes are out of tune with each other. That was my point. Listen to a major third!

As is BFTS.
Click to expand...

He's mostly concerned with compensating for having a nut that's cut too high, which increases the pitch distortion caused by string stretch.

Even if you bemoan the "errors" (actually compromises) of 12-TET temperament, or the inability for dead-perfect intonation on an instrument with its strings stretched toward the fretboard (both are real issues), the method of the Novak patent would simply add other large errors to these "errors."
Click to expand...

The string stretching issue (and also string stiffness at the free vibrating ends of the strings) is what bridge compensation is all about. A compensated nut helps also, but I use a zero fret instead.
 
#69
DavidRavenMoon said:
I don't see what this has to do with tuning at all though. After all strings on instruments are generally not parallel... the nut is usually narrower than the bridge. This means that on a standard parallel fret instrument, the strings are on an angle compared to the frets. And that doesn't give us intonation problems. :)
Click to expand...

The reason that this works on a parallel fret instrument is because of similar triangles. Each individual string makes the same angle with respect to each fret and therefore the distance between each fret increases in proportion to secant(theta) where theta is the angle between a string that is perpendicular to each fret and the non-perpendicular string. Since secant(theta) is a constant the string still sees the frets in the correct location. When the frets are no longer parallel this no longer applies and large errors can occur, greater for more extreme fanning. You can do some simple geometry to convince yourself of this.
 
#70
David, most of your statements in your last post were correct (Pythagorean temperament is not perfect- witness the Pythagorean Comma). But you did start off in your first post by stating that my logic was flawed, which it isn't. Your misconception is driven by the fact that my conclusions are in reference to the Novak patent, with which you are not conversant. You are thus critiquing something without knowing its basis, and are in error.

Another way of restating Geoff's explanation is: Parallel strings and frets: great. One of those two non-parallel: fine, because since the other is still parallel, proportions along a line remain constant. Both of these non-parallel and frets arbitrarily constrained to converge to a point per the Novak patent: no good.

Enough of
Invalid Link Removed !!
 
#74
pilotjones said:
The Booker patent is also a US patent. He has also filed for one in Great Britain.This is my interpretation: the patents only cover methods of producing a multiscale board, and the boards thus produced-- but the idea of a multiscale fretboard is not patented by anyone, and is not patentable.
Click to expand...

This differs from U.S and Europe a whole lot. In the US a method patent is allowed, say Buzz Feiten Intonation System. But in Europe, method patents are generally not allowed. Large lobbying are currently taking place within the E.U to pull though such a law within all European countries.

Mehod patent : If you come up with an idea just of HOW to do with physical objects that are already invented, then it's patentable within the US not in Europe.

Europe: You must invent a unique physical device that is necessary for your method as well. Doubt it if the fanned frets already found several centuries ago will be enough.

Well, this is by and large. But no one has patented the usual common intonation system that is present on every bass or guitar, in the U.S anyway. Because it's not enough "height" of thinking or uniqeness, i e that not anyone else could've come up with the same idea independently of each other.

/Mats
 
#75
Look...

I asked once Ralph Novak or one of his associates that JG guitars of Sweden/Malmoe, should produce a fanned fret bass. He replied very fast, and are very generous in handing out plans and patents, giving away thoughts and ideas. To anyone outside of U.S. He would charge basically nothing except for postage handling.

Because it isn't there in the US that JG or me, would sell the bass, anyway. So he's not that greedy, like say Buzz Feiten.

I say again: Process methods are not patentable within Europe as of yet. Not even UK. But it sure will be in the near future. As for now: not.

Has anyone yet dared to COMBINE the Splayed/Fanned Fret AND a Buzz Feiten Tuning System yet? To see what's happened?
That wouldn't be that impossible would it? Would it help?

/Mats

PS. To tell you truth I've still not exactly got the difference between splayed fret and fanned fret. It's sort of too a*al for me.
 
#76
Mats

Re EU patents: Very interesting. Are you sure about not patenting processes in Europe? Because it seems odd to me that if I were say, German and I developed a new, unique method to, say, refine steel at half the energy cost and pollution generation, that I would have no rights to it.

Re splayed frets: :confused: Don't know what that means. Unless it's simply another word for the same thing.

Re BFTS: IMO: To the best of my understanding, BFTS is simply a combination of a compensated nut, and stretch tuning. The compensated nut is unnecessary it you have a zero fret (or have a conventional nut slotted low enough-- that is, to the height of a fret), and anyone can do stretch tuning if they so choose.
 
#77
Mats Eriksson said:
Has anyone yet dared to COMBINE the Splayed/Fanned Fret AND a Buzz Feiten Tuning System yet? To see what's happened?
That wouldn't be that impossible would it? Would it help?
Click to expand...


Dingwall Guitars is listed as a Buzz Feiten retrofitter on the BFTS website. I don't know if he's done one of his basses with the BFTS or not.
 
#78
pilotjones said:
Mats

Re EU patents: Very interesting. Are you sure about not patenting processes in Europe? Because it seems odd to me that if I were say, German and I developed a new, unique method to, say, refine steel at half the energy cost and pollution generation, that I would have no rights to it.

Re splayed frets: :confused: Don't know what that means. Unless it's simply another word for the same thing.

Re BFTS: IMO: To the best of my understanding, BFTS is simply a combination of a compensated nut, and stretch tuning. The compensated nut is unnecessary it you have a zero fret (or have a conventional nut slotted low enough-- that is, to the height of a fret), and anyone can do stretch tuning if they so choose.
Click to expand...

I am very sure about this. Processes/mehods without physical devices. Especially since the BFTS holds no patents in Europe, AS OF YET. But you have to sign a disclosure deal and you can't sell your system under the name of BFTS. The method of learning how to ride a bicycle, thus, is not patentable. Or the method of playing guitar. Or bass.
Processes MUST be coupled to an invention, or unique physical device that may go along with it. I think you can't intonate fanned/splayed frets in the ordinary way either, but I am not sure. People's intonation at the bridges varies and should be kept individual, if one's a stickler for intonation.

Or to intonate any guitar the usual ordinary way. That can't be patented as well. But THE BRIDGE who makes this possible (Gibsons tune-o-matic as an example) can very well be patented.

Say, if I found an alternate tuning (standard) on bass or guitar which I should consider be superior to any tuning today, and I want it patented, so you should pay me each time you detuned to that. Well, good luck to me for seeking that patent!:)

I have only seen this on the Swedish patent agency homepage, were it's in the FAQ. Not much worth, giving you the link since it's in Swedish only :) But it is to be changed in a year or two, if it's not already happened this 1th of July, the usual "large-change-in-laws" time.

I have zero frets as well, let's not go into BFTS, it will just rile me up, big time...:ninja:

Yes, in my thesaurus splayed and fanned are used interchangeably.

Oh one thing more, if you are ever hearing a company or inventor claiming that he holds a "world patent" on anything, they're lying. There are no such thing, and has never been. One has to gain patent individually for each country. There are organistations, that helps with this though, that you can apply for several countries at once. All countries have NOT applied to EPC or PCT or whatever the international agreements are. So if splayed/fanned frets are really an invention as such, is actually very debatable. Let's not go into this here if fanned/splayed are patentable or not.

I am a fan fret, zero fret fan, fan of headless, and some graphite necks.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back