Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    1,001

    Default RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    I've owned an Eastman and loved the radiused fretboard . I now own a KM-150 and love the sound but miss the radius fretboard . I've been considering the J. Bovier models and the Kentucky KM 950 in particular because of the radius and the positive feedback on their respective tones . Unfortunately I haven't seen either of these instruments sold locally so I've not been able to compare or assess their pros and cons .
    If there are any Cafe-ers familiar enough with both of these models to comment , I'd appreciate your thoughts on the radius fretboards of each-how they might compare to the Eastman's radiused fretboard- and the overall tone and playability . I know that's a tall order but any input is appreciated . Thanks all .

  2. #2
    F5G & MD305 Astro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    2,494

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    I have a radiused Eastman and a flat Gibson. I'm no expert but as a quasi newbie I cant say that I really notice any difference in playability because of this fretboard difference. There are a lot of other factors like neck thickness and fretboard width and nut slot width that are far more noticable to me. I'm sure there must be a difference for some in regards to radius vs flat but the other things stand out far more to me. Are you sure its not the thinner Eastman neck you prefer? Can you put your finger on what you feel is the difference when you play them ?
    No matter where I go, there I am...Unless I'm running a little late.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    1,001

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    I have a radiused Eastman and a flat Gibson. I'm no expert but as a quasi newbie I cant say that I really notice any difference in playability because of this fretboard difference. There are a lot of other factors like neck thickness and fretboard width and nut slot width that are far more noticeable to me. I'm sure there must be a difference for some in regards to radius vs flat but the other things stand out far more to me. Are you sure its not the thinner Eastman neck you prefer? Can you put your finger on what you feel is the difference when you play them ?
    Well ...as I said ...I have not played the J. Bovier /Kentucky 950 . But you make some good points with regards to fretboard and/or slot width . Yes the Eastman neck is a thin neck but doesn't seem much thinner than MY Km 150 . And yet when I pick up an Eastman it seems so much more playable and I seem to have an easier time getting around on it than I do with my KM 150 . I have always assumed it was to do with the radius and was curious about how the Eastman radius might compare to the aforementioned models

  4. #4
    Registered User mandobassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Delran, NJ
    Posts
    2,921

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    You'll get lots of varying opinions on this subject, but for me, the radius vs. non-radius is one of the least important factors in playability. I have played several of both types and have never been able to attribute better playability to either design. You get used to whichever you choose.
    Larry Hunsberger

    2013 J Bovier A5 Special w/ToneGard
    D'Addario FW-74 flatwound strings
    1909 Weymann&Sons bowlback
    1919 Weymann&Sons mandolute
    Ibanez PF5
    1993 Oriente HO-20 hybrid double bass
    3/4 guitar converted to octave mandolin

  5. The following members say thank you to mandobassman for this post:


  6. #5
    F5G & MD305 Astro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    2,494

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    The Eastman also has smaller frets. My Gibson (and the kentucky 950) have large frets. This also tripped me up at first and made me feel I played faster on the Eastman at first. But the more I play them both, the less I notice the many differences.

    Also my Eastman has a satin finish that is slicker than the pretty finish on the Gibson and my hand will stick on the Gibson neck when sliding chop chords at times.

    The preferred neck thickness can vary from lead to chords so its a compromise.

    Yeah I agree with ManBassMan. I cant tell whether I'm playing a flat fretboard or the radiused one unless I stop and look at it from the side.
    No matter where I go, there I am...Unless I'm running a little late.

  7. #6

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    I haven't played those models but I can say it's a matter of personal preference as to what you prefer. I think a lot of players like to start out on wider arched boards but tend to move toward thin and flat as they play more unless you have long or fat fingers then I think you would probably stay with the wider arched board. I think it might hurt the chop though, you may not tend to hit the high strings as much and just hit the middle strings more. I think a thin flat board puts less space in between the notes and helps for faster playing but as pointed out I think the arching helps with sliding notes. You might try a 'The Loar' Lm220, the last one I saw for $200, used I think, and it was a great deal.

  8. #7

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    I gravitate towards instruments with radiused fretboards and find them more to my liking despite the fact that, logically, flat fretboards would let me do certain things easier.

  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    1,001

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Interesting responses ....thanks folks . For me ...along with picking single notes ,which seems easier on the radius fretboard , I think it has to do with the closed /barred chords . I find it more difficult on a flat fingerboard to get a clean chord whereas with the radius boards its a piece of cake, comparatively .
    The only radiused Kentucky fingerboard I've played is the KM 250 and had I not been told I wouldn't have guessed it was radiused at all . I wondered if the J. Bovier radiused fretboards might be more pronounced than the Kentuckys .

  10. #9
    Registered User rockies's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kimberley BC
    Posts
    486

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Personally I don't seem to notice the difference between radius and flat. However I think to make a real comparison I would want the mandolins set up exactly the same. Are you sure the first fret clearance (nut slots), the neck relief and the action at the 12th fret are the same on both mandolins. It may be that the Eastman has a better setup than the KM-150 and that can make the difference in play ability more so than the flat vs radius of the fretboard. Just my thoughts.
    Dave
    Heiden A, '52 Martin D-18, Taylor 510, Carlson Custom A with Electronics

  11. #10
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    The only thing that seems significantly easier on the flat fret board is when you fret two courses with one finger. This occurs in a bunch of tune I do, and I have to push that much harder with a radius board, to hold all four strings (two courses) down without a buzz, and do it quickly.

    The radius fret board is a little more comfortable, and can feel more natural.

    I have both, I play both, and which ever one I am going to always feels better than which ever one I have been playing.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  12. #11

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by roysboy View Post
    I think it has to do with the closed /barred chords . I find it more difficult on a flat fingerboard to get a clean chord whereas with the radius boards its a piece of cake, comparatively.
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffD View Post
    The only thing that seems significantly easier on the flat fret board is when you fret two courses with one finger. This occurs in a bunch of tune I do, and I have to push that much harder with a radius board, to hold all four strings (two courses) down without a buzz, and do it quickly.
    So, let's get this straight, which is easier for barre chords: flat or radiused?

  13. #12
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSausage View Post
    So, let's get this straight, which is easier for barre chords: flat or radiused?
    I dunno. Maybe its the curve of the finger.

    I have successfully avoided barre chords.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  14. #13
    texaspaul texaspaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas
    Posts
    238

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    I have owned a Gibson flat board 1 1/8" nut, a J Bovier radius 1 1/8" and a Weber 1 1/18 radius board, and a couple of Kentucky's with flat 1 1/16" boards and tend to like the narrower non-radius boards. I like the tone of my J Bovier as well as any of the Kentucky's I have owned or played. There is a couple of hundred dollars difference between the J Bovier A Special and even more on a A Traditional, than a KM 950. My opinion is there is not that much of an upgrade in tone or volume, however there is a difference in sound. Whether or not you would prefer the sound of one or the other is something only you can say.
    I have been through a lot of mandolins looking for a certain tone combination between the 2 mandolins I like the most. One has a strong clear E & A string the other a nice woof on chords and chops. But does have as much complexity in the trebles. That combination is really hard to find without laying out a lot more than I want to pay.

  15. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    1,001

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by texaspaul View Post
    I have owned a Gibson flat board 1 1/8" nut, a J Bovier radius 1 1/8" and a Weber 1 1/18 radius board, and a couple of Kentucky's with flat 1 1/16" boards and tend to like the narrower non-radius boards. I like the tone of my J Bovier as well as any of the Kentucky's I have owned or played. There is a couple of hundred dollars difference between the J Bovier A Special and even more on a A Traditional, than a KM 950. My opinion is there is not that much of an upgrade in tone or volume, however there is a difference in sound. Whether or not you would prefer the sound of one or the other is something only you can say.
    I have been through a lot of mandolins looking for a certain tone combination between the 2 mandolins I like the most. One has a strong clear E & A string the other a nice woof on chords and chops. But does have as much complexity in the trebles. That combination is really hard to find without laying out a lot more than I want to pay.
    Thanks for weighing in on my query . If I understand you correctly , you are saying that you prefer flat , narrow boards ...BUT you feel the J. Bovier has tone and volume equal to the more expensive KM -950 ? Appreciate that input ....

  16. #15
    Unfamous String Buster Beanzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cornwall & London
    Posts
    2,921
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Good thread Roysboy.

    I'm trying to understand the difference in feel/ space between the two styles.

    Is there any advantage for the terminally fat-fingered when playing tunes which require open strings either side of fretted strings?. I come across this a lot when trying duo-style pieces, cross-picking, also when double-stopping where one course then slides up or down so needing adjacent courses with seperate fingers.

    I've been managing ok by various 'bodges' on my 1" and the Kentucky 1 1/8" but I'd rather get everything right for my 'big one' when I get it. I was recommended a Phoenix neo-classical as it has a radiused finger-board but haven't got my head around why this could help here. If anyone can shed light on the physics that would help me.
    Eoin



    "Forget that anyone is listening to you and always listen to yourself" - Fryderyk Chopin

  17. #16
    Work in Progress Ed Goist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    6,001
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by roysboy View Post
    ...snip... I wondered if the J. Bovier radiused fretboards might be more pronounced than the Kentuckys .
    Though I am not certain, I believe all three of the mandolins you're asking about (a Kentucky KM-950, all the Eastmans, and all the JBoviers) have a 12" radius (image below). I believe they also all have 1-1/8" nut widths, and string spacing similar to one another.

    As briefly mentioned above, the big difference (playability wise) between these three will be the fretwire size. The Eastmans have relatively tiny wire , the Kentucky has what I'd call medium wire , and the JBoviers have nice, big, jucy fretwire .

    12" fretboard radius:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Radius_12”_600ppi.jpg 
Views:	132 
Size:	33.5 KB 
ID:	123477

    Images of other radii can be found here.
    c.1965 Harmony Monterey H410 Mandolin
    "What a long, strange trip it's been..." - Robert Hunter
    "Life is too important to be taken seriously." - Oscar Wilde
    Think Hippie Thoughts...
    Gear: The Current Cast of Characters

  18. #17
    F5G & MD305 Astro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    2,494

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    I am just over 2 yrs in. As a newbie I thought hard and long on this. I wanted the easiest thing to play and you tend to get the idea from reading that the radiused and wider boards are easier to play. Not necessarily true at all.

    The more I play, the more I think I prefer flat and narrow. I have long thin fingers with skinny tips and medium to slightly long hand palm length. I think finger/hand size determines what you will eventually like and it takes time to know. Also the neck shape seems important and whether you chunk chords more or play leads more and how that feels on the length of your hand. Skinny tips, you may like narrow. Long palm, you may prefer rounder back contour. Short plam, flatter neck back contour, ect. Radiused vs flat ? -well matters little to me.I cant feel the difference. Flat is easier to set action on to me. Also if you want to switch out a bridge, seems like flat would be easier get right. I'm not sure how they compensate the bridge on a radiused board or if it matters. I guess they notch deeper bridge string grooves to try and match the radius ? Seems tough to do.

    Fretwire?, well I havent played long enough to know what I prefer. It definitly is a noticable difference. I have a mando with tiny and a mando with big. I think I'm gravitating toward medium.

    Space between strings is also important.

    I tried a teens Gibson F2 oval and liked the tone. But the space between strings was so great I couldnt fret 2 adjacent courses with one finger and bar chords were tough. Great for leads though.

    These things are very hard to get to know. Thats why the best solution is owning 24 mandolins.

    My advice is dont get hung up on whether its radiused or not. Longer the hand, rounder the back of neck. Skinnier the finger tips, narrower the string spacing and the neck/nut width. In the beginning, common sense is to gravitate toward medium frets but you will get used to whatever it comes with.
    Last edited by Astro; Sep-05-2014 at 7:45am.
    No matter where I go, there I am...Unless I'm running a little late.

  19. The following members say thank you to Astro for this post:


  20. #18
    Work in Progress Ed Goist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    6,001
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    ...snip...
    My advice is dont get hung up on whether its radiused or not.
    Totally agree. This stuff is ALL subjective. What works for one player doesn't necessarily work or hold true for others.
    c.1965 Harmony Monterey H410 Mandolin
    "What a long, strange trip it's been..." - Robert Hunter
    "Life is too important to be taken seriously." - Oscar Wilde
    Think Hippie Thoughts...
    Gear: The Current Cast of Characters

  21. #19

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Goist View Post
    Totally agree. This stuff is ALL subjective. What works for one player doesn't necessarily work or hold true for others.
    It may be subjective for you, but not for me

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OldSausage For This Useful Post:


  23. #20
    coprolite mandroid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Outer Spiral Arm, of Galaxy, NW Oregon.
    Posts
    17,103

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    If trying to say more than like/dislike..
    For comparisons .. a radius is a number .. (1/2 the diameter of a circle)

    used as if a portion of a circle's circumference is the fingerboard arch..

    there are radius data mentions the builder's may offer.

    A compound radius is as if the circle is progressively bigger
    at the 12th fret than the first..
    writing about music
    is like dancing,
    about architecture

  24. #21
    formerly Philphool Phil Goodson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Statesville, NC
    Posts
    3,256

    Default Re: RADIUS COMPARISONS etc..

    Flat boards are fine.
    Compound radiused boards are better for me.
    Constant radiused boards are BAD.
    IMO.
    Phil

    “Sharps/Flats” “Accidentals”

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •