Yet another multi-scale neck question, with pics!

[Eric Knapp]

Hello,

I'm trying to get my head around how multi-scale necks are made. I couldn't visualize them as I've never held one before. To help I'm making a full-sized model of a multi-scale neck out of foam-core poster board. That leads me to this question about the head stock angle. Here's the fretboard and head stock.

If you angle the head stock to keep the same plane as the fretboard then this happens. I have exaggerated the angle to close to 90º so I could see things better.

With this approach there is a problem with what to do with that gap.

The other approach is shown here.

The fretboard and the head stock are at different angles. The strings still go across the head stock at the same angle, which seems better. I think the Harry Fleishman instructions end up with this solution. However, I would like to make a carved neck that is typical on archtop guitars with no scarf joint. As I'm looking at pictures of multi-scale guitars it's not clear how different makers are doing this. It seems as if many are using a slanted head stock and then using a non-standard design to compensate.

What is the common solution to this? Has anyone here done one without a scarf joint? I know I'm taking on extra complexity by trying to do a multi-scale neck at the rookie level. However, that is my interest and the idea of having the guitar I want will inspire me to keep going.

Thanks,

-Eric

[Jason Rodgers]

I think there are probably folks using both of the solutions you've mentioned, but from my observations, there are fewer people doing the tricky scarf joint that matches the angle of the nut.

If I'm not mistaken, Ralph Novak used your first example, kept a typical square fretboard end, and just carved down that triangle behind the nut so the strings have an unbroken path to the tuner posts. I've done this, and it works fine.

Another solution that I've also employed is to use a zero fret and a straight nut. This requires carving down that little triangle again, so the strings can get some break-over, but the nut (string guide in this case) is progressively further away from the higher strings, and they can slide over the zero fret a little when bent. I've seen at least one other builder do this. It works fine, too, though you should use a stainless zero fret.

Maybe Perry Ormsby will chime in, because his multi-scale nut to headstock transition looks great, and I'm not sure how he's doing it.

[Greg Martin]

Yep that is a brain teaser.when I made mine,I didn't even realize there would be a problem as you explain,until I strung it up.i had to introduce a compound angle,by scraping to keep the E and A strings from laying on the headstock. I was afraid I'd go thru the head veneer. In the end I was able to get enough of a break angle.that small area had to be scraped down about 1/16" and fared into the headstock to look right.
If I made another I'd think about a deep scallop fender type headstock,instead of a tilt back headstock. I'd be sure to lay it out prior to building for sure. I know you'll figure it out,at least you saw the problem ahead of time.
You can see my 8 string on my picture site. www.redtailguitars.com

[Greg Martin]

Of course I ment to say it was the G B and high E strings that needed the compound angle for clearance and break angle.