Jumbo Frets?

[thenextbigthing]

How do you know if your guitar has jumbo frets? What are jumbo frets? Whats the different between them and regualar frets. I see advertisments with guitar and some say they have jumbo frets.

 

[Jamz0r]

Frets range in size.

• Small (.074 to .085)
• Medium (.085 to .095)
• Jumbo (.095 to .120)

Here's a picture of Jumbo frets.

 

[EveningSky]

What are they good for?

I also like Jumbo frets.
I have long wondered about the advantages versus disadvantages of different fret sizes???
Thank you,
ES

 

[Slowrider]

I also like Jumbo frets.
I have long wondered about the advantages versus disadvantages of different fret sizes???
Thank you,
ES

One thing is more sustain because you are pushing a thin wire against a larger mass. They last longer...depending on material. You will definitely like them...small frets will look like toys, from that point on.

 

[32-20-Blues]

I also like Jumbo frets.
I have long wondered about the advantages versus disadvantages of different fret sizes???
Thank you,
ES

Generally considered more comfortable to play on, given that they're easier to bend on.

I always wondered if the intonation would suffer, given that the string is being stretched over a greater width of metal.

Light will answer that one for you.

 

[muttley600]

One thing is more sustain because you are pushing a thin wire against a larger mass

How does that work then?? Sustain has nothing to do with what fret wire you use. Sustain is a result of the amount of energy in the string and the rate at which it dissapated via the bridge and to a much lesser extent via the nut or fret. A certain amount of energy is also lost via internal friction or damping in the string. In scientific terms it is considered as Impedence and often described as Q. You also lose a bit of energy as a result of the action of the pickup magnets. In basic terms the energy in the string is lost to two main components volume or amplitude and sustain. Increase one and you decrease the other. If you manage to increase sustain without changing the volume or amplitude of the resulting vibration you have created energy. A neat trick and I'm sure you would be in demand at many scientific institions re-writing the laws of physics. The material and mass of the fret has been proven to have a neglible influence on either the amplitude or sustain or for that matter tonal qualities of fretted instrument.

If a setup is done correctly you should not have any problems with intonation when using fat frets as the string should make contact with crown of the fret and break off it at a single point. You would be more likely to suffer from intonation problems with frets that sit to high rather than frets that are wide.

 

[32-20-Blues]

You also lose a bit of energy as a result of the action of the pickup magnets.

Another point I have often considered. If using 'strong' pick-ups, does the more powerful magnetic field inhibit string vibration, and consequently sustain?

On this basis, is the output of a pick-up an exercise in compromise?

 

[Jamz0r]

I also don't see how the fret width would alter sustain...

I had jumbo 120 frets on my Soloist, but had it refretted with large 95 frets.
I didn't notice any decrease in sustain.

I was also lead to believe that the narrower frets will allow you to be more articulate in your playing, and would have less intonation problems once they begin to wear (between dressings).

 

[Light]

Jumbo frets do not, in and of themselves, increase sustain, but their height can keep the string from touching the fingerboard under your finger. Less energy gets transfered to the neck, where it is likely to get soaked up in a joint of some sort. All of this, of course, assumes that you aren't griping the strings like a gorilla, but have a reasonably light touch.

The primary advantage of jumbo frets, to guys who like them, is that for some people they are easier to play. If you push really hard, they are likely to cause you intonation problems, and if you are used to feeling the fingerboard under your fingers you may be pushing too hard for jumbo frets, so you would find them harder to play. But if you have a light touch, intonation is not a problem. Some guys like the vibrato they can get by just varying the amount of preasure on the string, and if you do a lot of bending jumbos mean that you have less friction against the fingerboard. Same thing when playing fast - less contact, which means less friction, ie. less resistance, which of course means it feels easier to play.

On the converse side, some people just don't like the feel. One of the best players I know came in because all of his friends had been telling him to try jumbo frets. We did a refret, he tried it for like 2 days, hated it, and came back to have them removed and replaced with the standard Martin fret wire. Then again, another good friend and amazing player who buys a fair number of our guitars comes in and gets us to put in the largest fret wire we have on almost every guitar he gets (Dunlop 6000, in case you were wondering - ths stuff is fucking huge!) And he has a lot of guitars. It is all a preference thing, and unfortunatly the only way to really figure out what YOU like is to try a bunch of different fret wires on either the same, or at least similar guitars.

As far as duribility, that is a matter of material. Stainless last longer, nickle/silver wears out faster. The one advantage of Jumbo frets is that; when they DO wear, you can get more fret dresses out of them before you need another refret, but of course as you go through a number of fret dresses you lose a lot of the benifits of jumbo frets. Also, you don't get all THAT many more dresses out of them, because the extra width of jumbo frets means that they can not be dressed as low as a narrower fret. If a fret gets too flat, it is just impossible to get a good point contact on it.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[muttley600]

Jumbo frets do not, in and of themselves, increase sustain, but their height can keep the string from touching the fingerboard under your finger. Less energy gets transfered to the neck, where it is likely to get soaked up in a joint of some sort.

I'm not sure that current research or physics in general would support this. The amoumt of energy lost at the fret is reconed to be less than 1 or 2%. I can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head. When I did some research on this some years ago it certainly appeared to be the case. The difference between fretwire bone and brass was also minute. The difference in sound they appear to impart is it would seem more down to the nature of the harmonic waves setup in sympathy as the wave travels back and forth down the string.

The main thing going on at the nut or fret is to send the wave back done the string since the bridge is generally more "elastic" most of the energy is transferred there. More so on acoustic guitars obviously, but still the case with most electrics.

These things are incredibly hard to be conclusive about however so I would qualify all this by saying as I understand it!! The physics however is pretty well accepted for a vibrating string. For energy in the string you have the amplitude and time of decay or "volume" and "sustain" they are linked and no amount of changing frets is going to change it so as you would notice the difference. What we do as instrument makers is to try and maximise the amount of air that that string can move over a given period of time and at a given amplitude.

 

[32-20-Blues]

These things are incredibly hard to be conclusive about however so I would qualify all this by saying as I understand it!! The physics however is pretty well accepted for a vibrating string. For energy in the string you have the amplitude and time of decay or "volume" and "sustain" they are linked and no amount of changing frets is going to change it so as you would notice the difference. What we do as instrument makers is to try and maximise the amount of air that that string can move over a given period of time and at a given amplitude.

Volume and sustain are linked, yes, and are components of the energy in a vibrating string, but the point is that the material found at the points between which the string is strung (i.e, the bridge and the nut, or the bridge and a fret when the guitar is played) do have an effect upon how much or how little of that energy is transferred to a guitar body. Thus, bone is a better material for a nut than, say, pine, which will absorb vibration and decrease sustain. Similarly, density in fret material is important. Once again, plastic would be of little use because it will rob a string of kinetic energy.

The system of frets on a guitar is, theoretically, a system of moveable nuts. I have heard a renaissance acoustic guitar built using bone frets, and the tone was considerably different. Similarly, a cittern or lute (upon which gut frets are tied) will have softer, more mellow characteristics than an equivalent instrument with modern frets.

 

[muttley600]

Volume and sustain are linked, yes, and are components of the energy in a vibrating string, but the point is that the material found at the points between which the string is strung (i.e, the bridge and the nut, or the bridge and a fret when the guitar is played) do have an effect upon how much or how little of that energy is transferred to a guitar body. Thus, bone is a better material for a nut than, say, pine, which will absorb vibration and decrease sustain. Similarly, density in fret material is important. Once again, plastic would be of little use because it will rob a string of kinetic energy.

Not entirely correct. The property of a material that is important here is Youngs Modulus which is a measurement of a matrials elasticity or the ability of a material to be deflected and return to its original position. This is crucial to the understanding of how musical instruments work and is fundemental material property. The material that a fret is made of has VERY little influence on the resulting rate of transfer of energy. A fret has to have enough stiffness and the ability to resit defromation and bone, fretwire, brass among others demonstrate are suitable for the purpose. Yes a softer material will decrease sustain because it will damp the vibrating string. We were not originally talking about changing material so this is not the claim that was made. The claim made was that a larger fret of the same material will increase sustain. This is ENTIRELY false regardless that there is more of it. Its modulus of elasticity remains the same as it is a material property.

There are high stress high impact plastics that could quite possibly be used as frets. It would depend on what plastic is being considered.

The material a fret is made of be it gut or gold is important only in that is able to perform the task. My claim that the percieved difference in tone is more as a result of the influence the material has on the upper harmonics of the vibrating string is also correct and widely accepted by the geekish community of musical acousticians to which I once belonged

Density in a fret material will change fundemental and the speed of sound within that material. It will not alter its modulus of elasticity.The important relationship to instrument makers is that between mass and stiffness. Note, not density and stiffness.

Yes differing materials will damp the vibrations in differing ways they also damp differing frequencies and harmonics selectively which is why it is such a hard subject to be conclusive about. Physics still apply however. You Canna change the laws of physics Jim

The use of both bone and gut as a fret material on Renaissance guitarra, viheula, lutes and viola da Gamba is really not imprtant here. Because as a fret material it only really works when used in conjunction with gut strings. They are an enirely different kettle of fish.

 

[32-20-Blues]

Not entirely correct. The property of a material that is important here is Youngs Modulus which is a measurement of a matrials elasticity or the ability of a material to be deflected and return to its original position. This is crucial to the understanding of how musical instruments work and is fundemental material property. The material that a fret is made of has VERY little influence on the resulting rate of transfer of energy. .

Not entirely correct. Young's Modulus refers to the elasticity of a material that is subject to forces of compression or tension, neither of which act upon a fret.

If you don't believe that the material a fret is made of has a significant influence on the sound, then fret a Stratocaster with cocktail sticks one day when you've got time on your hands, and report back to us.

The use of bone and gut in the frets of Renaissance guitars is still a valid point of comparison, specifically because a modern equivalent can be heard in the classical guitar. Recreated renaissance instruments more often than not use nylon strings also. However, those featuring bone or tied gut frets will sound considerably different than a modern instrument with regular frets.

Finally, I do not accept your point regarding the relationship between mass and stiffness. Mass is inextricably related to density, given that density is mass divided by volume. In fact, as a purely isolated term, mass is relatively useless. What, actually, does it refer to??? Not weight, which is the influence of gravity on a body. Not size, which is measured by physical dimensions. No, the definition most readily accepted is that mass refers to the amount of matter in a body. Which is a fairly useless statement when you think about it. The alternative: 'Mass is something with inertia' is even less helpful. Thus, the amount of mass within a space - i.e, density, - is useful for a luthier. And, if you will permit me one generalisation, density and rigidity, or 'stiffness', generally go hand in hand as far as timber is concerned.

Yes, the laws of physics cannot be changed. They can, however, be undertsood and thus applied.

 

[muttley600]

Young's Modulus refers to the elasticity of a material that is subject to forces of compression or tension, neither of which act upon a fret.

Wrong on both counts. Youngs Modulus is a measure of elasticity. It is used in tensile tests on material and also on compression tests to create stress strain graphs and indicate where a materials point of maximum deformation or "failure" would normally occur.

The only way energy is dissipated through a fret from a vibrating string is as a result of this property. Without the ability of a material to be deflected and then return to its original position No transfer of energy would take place. The material would either be entirely rigid or entirely plastic. reflecting all energy or obsorbing it all respectively. This is true on both a macro and micro level within all materials.

I have not stated that different materials do not act differently as fret material only that the amount of inluence it can have on sustain or more correctly the decay curve of the string is negligible when compared to the loss of energy via the bridge. This is less significant on an electric guitar bridge. The difference in tone between one material and another is as a result of the ability of a material to selectively filter out certain frequencies. This is not my opinion, it is accepted fact and one I grasped early on during my musical acoustic masters. Now unless someone has re-written the papers I studied at the time and changed the principles of materials science this is still the case.

Cocktail sticks would not make a good fret because it would wear in no time. On the other hand consider many of Benedettos guitars as well as other makers, they have an ebony nut they do not sound significantly different to bone or Mica. What does this suggest to you?? They do sound differnt but levels of sustain and amplitude are not altered when I put one on one of my archtops!!

Finally, I do not accept your point regarding the relationship between mass and stiffness. Mass is inextricably related to density, given that density is mass divided by volume. In fact, as a purely isolated term, mass is relatively useless. What, actually, does it refer to??? Not weight, which is the influence of gravity on a body. Not size, which is measured by physical dimensions. No, the definition most readily accepted is that mass refers to the amount of matter in a body. Which is a fairly useless statement when you think about it. The alternative: 'Mass is something with inertia' is even less helpful. Thus, the amount of mass within a space - i.e, density, - is useful for a luthier. And, if you will permit me one generalisation, density and rigidity, or 'stiffness', generally go hand in hand as far as timber is concerned.

I'll try to explain..

Density is not a significant measure in terms of musical acoustics. Mass or if I need to be more precise mass per unit length/volume is. It is critical to musical acoustics because it is by selectively adding mass by say bracing a guitar top or by removing mass, thinning a guitar top we are changing the stiffness and therefore the frequency and amplitude at which it will become excited. By doing this we are not altering the density of the wood . Same with a string by making it thinner we are not changing the desity of the material but are changing the mass per unit length. For equal tension of both these strings they will vibrate at frequencies. With me??


The modern Classical guitar is not an equivilant to the baroque or rennaisance instruments. There has been a logical process of developement of the instrument over the 500 years that has rendered comparison invalid. They are completely diffent instruments both in terms of construction and application.
I make viola da Gamba and Lutes they are what I trained on. Although I don't make many these days. A serious player would not use nylon strings. If as some do, use them as an aid to practice they normally ask me to tie nylon frets as well.

 

[TelePaul]

It is used in tensile tests .

Tensile...perhaps from the word tension?

Seriously though, you're both wrong; I happen to have invented the guitar and that just isn't true.

 

[muttley600]

Tensile...perhaps from the word tension?

I would imagine so. Anyone fancy a beer now

 

[TelePaul]

I would imagine so. Anyone fancy a beer now

Yes, but you can't come.

I'll bring my hygrometer and we can check relative levels of alcohol density.

 

[muttley600]

I'll bring my hygrometer and we can check relative levels of alcohol density

Ahh good ole specific gravity. I find I need a few pints to find a specific gravity that works for me... My wife used to call me ABV after a few nights out with the boys in the band. Not gigging of course!!!

 

[TelePaul]

Ahh good ole specific gravity. I find I need a few pints to find a specific gravity that works for me... My wife used to call me ABV after a few nights out with the boys in the band. Not gigging of course!!!

the sea took my wife...and my dog

 

[metalj]

ALLRIGHT ALREADY ENOUGH WITH THE SCIENCE LESSON FOR GOD SAKES

Let me put an end to your Hypothises(SP?) It is real simple.

Other than the fact some people like one or the other. I think playing style is what comes in to factor the most.

If you are a shredder or mostly lead, then jumbo frets will help you play those hammerons and quick lighting runs.

IF all you do is play power chords on the low strings with two or three fingers you'll probably like Jumbos the best.

If you are a chord guy, that uses every string when you play a chord then Ill bet youll like the medium or small frets. It makes it easier on your hand and fingers to play the higher strings like on a bar chord and puts less stress on your wrist and hands. you dont have to put as much pressure down to get the strings to fret.

I use both. when i do leads, i prefer jumbos, when i am playing a beetles song with odd chords, or bar chords, then i like smaller frets. My hand will tire easily if i chord(real chords) all night with jumbo frets.

hope I helped.
peace.