Official Luthiers Forum!

Has anyone one here done a Novax fanned fret set up on a build?

I see them more on basses than guitars and Dingwall basses seem to use them exclusively.

They are patented but if I just build one for myself and not for sale I should not have to pay a liscensing fee.

$75 liscense fee for one or $50 for ten or more per guitar.

This is very interesting reading on the patent fanned fret patent superceded

Just wait a few weeks - his patent expires at the end of the this month.

This style of building actually goes back at least 450-500 years on other
lute-family instruments, so I've always seen the patent as questionable. I
suppose Ralph Novak is the one responsible for bringing it to the modern
guitar, but there has always been some contention about the legitimacy of
his patent being granted.

But all that aside, If you are building for personal use and do not plan on
selling it there would be no patent violation.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Hopefully, Paul Davis (Sprockett) will chime in here as he builds a number of fanned fret guitars.

_________________
Don Atwood
Arlington, VA

I played my neighbor's the other day and it sounded so fat and rich in tone. Felt weird to play on the fan frets but I'm sure one gets used to it. I would be interested in knowing more about his hollow body electrics. Is it the pick-uips or what makes it sound so good?

I doubt the patten police will get after you if you build one

I've played a few guitars with fanned frets. None of them had extreme fanning. I've found them surprisingly natural to play. I remain unconvinced that there's any real sound advantage, but I look forward to playing more of them and I still have an open mind about it.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

[QUOTE=David Collins] Just wait a few weeks - his patent expires at the end of the this month.

This style of building actually goes back at least 450-500 years on other
lute-family instruments, so I've always seen the patent as questionable. I
suppose Ralph Novak is the one responsible for bringing it to the modern
guitar, but there has always been some contention about the legitimacy of
his patent being granted.

But all that aside, If you are building for personal use and do not plan on
selling it there would be no patent violation.[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, building a copy of a patented invention IS a violation, even if it's for your own use and you don't sell it.

On the other hand, even if you do violate a patent, nothing happens unless the owner of the patent sues you in court. No one would ever sue you for building one copy, because the damages that could be recovered would not be worth the cost and effort of pursuing the suit.

And, if you can show that the patent was not valid to begin with, the suit will not succeed anyway.

A patent just gives the inventer the right to try to sue you for damages if you violate it.

Phil

I have built some, mostly on guitars, but also did that 6 string to 8 string monster converison of a reso body last year.

So what is it you need to know ???? I have never talked to Ralph, read one little article on it and then just started making them. My personal guitar, I call the Dragonfly, has scales of 26.25 and 25.25, and i have built others with the same. This year I have a 26.5 to 25.5, as well as a 27.5 to 29 baritone on the go, plus another 8 string electric, ala Charlie Hunter for a jazzer. The worst part is marking out he scales by hand, then cutting the slots - I devised a simple hold down sliding table with a hairline of sorts to be able to cut them on the tablesaw with the slotting blade.

The Patent is (was ??) good for instruments built or imported into the US only. No worldwide rights to it.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Hi Scooter....

I've built a couple like Tony has, on my first one I visited Ralph and spent a couple of hours talking to him about the system and how it worked. I paid Ralph a fee for each one that I built, mine have been more extreme than what Tony did, the lower scale was 25.7 and the upper was 24.75. Are their specific questions you wanted answered...

Larry that is an interesting discussion but anyone who has actually built one can tell you that you need to add in compensation when your laying out your bridge and saddle position, so I'm not sure what the new patent actually gets anyone. Harry Fleishman has built a number of them as well and when I was in harry's class we discussed them for a while, he has a similar methodology to what Ralph has (in fact I think Harry was doing it first). There is a good deal of animosity towards Ralph's patent, I personally don't care, he was smart enough to do it and so sending him money for each one I build is not a big deal at all...

When I layed out my scales, I calculated the compensation for the 1st and 6th string and that drove my actual measurements for the saddle placement. I also used a very wide saddle so I had room to intonate the guitar as accurately as I could.

Cheers

-Paul-

_________________
-Paul-

Patriot Guitars

I used fretcalc to get the saddle position as well for mine - you want extreme - try 25.75 to 29, and figure it out on a reso - all measurements including comp from the saddle position, so you align the frets to the saddle, not the other way round when starting from scratch on a guitar !!!! the saddle can swivel, but cant move laterally !!! Then glue the FB onto the neck all lined up too.

As far as patents go - in Canada anyway, I believe you can make anything you want, patented or not, as long as its not for commercial purposes - no one in their right mind is going to take someone to court because they built one. Unless of course they have money to burn, and I am pretty sure Ralph doesnt.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

[QUOTE=Phil Marino]   

As far as I know, building a copy of a patented invention IS a violation, even if it's for your own use and you don't sell it.

On the other hand, even if you do violate a patent, nothing happens unless the owner of the patent sues you in court. No one would ever sue you for building one copy, because the damages that could be recovered would not be worth the cost and effort of pursuing the suit.

And, if you can show that the patent was not valid to begin with, the suit will not succeed anyway.

A patent just gives the inventer the right to try to sue you for damages if you violate it.

Phil[/QUOTE]

Hi-

I was curious about this very thing and emailed Ralph and someone from his company got back to me about a week later. She said that as long as it was for my personal use and would always be in my possession that there was no need for the $75 licencing fee. I don't know whether it is because the patent is unenforcable towards personal instruments or they don't care about them. She said the main thing the $75 did for the builder was to have support from Ralph Novak in the building of the instrument. I have heard from a few folks that Ralph helped them with personal instruments even without the licence fee, so I take it he is a helpful guy either way.

Thanks-

_________________
John Lewis
Wannabe builder owned by 2 crazy dachshunds

It is a popular myth that one may use a patented device or method without obligation for personal use.

With regard to the new patent, its flaw is lack of originality. There was a public discussion a few years ago on MIMF about how the fret lines do not converge on a point when the strings are not parallel, and methods of laying out the frets using two scales and connecting the dots have been public for years before that. Mike Doolin posted a description of how to do it on his website several years ago. The guy in England is another in the long list of people trying to claim rights to stuff that is in the public domain.

"Fanned Frets," BTW, is a registered trademark and does not expire.

"Has anyone one here done a Novax fanned fret set up on a build?"

I'm assuming you mean on a guitar. But why not say so?Howard Klepper38904.5905208333

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

I was just talking to a lawyer friend (and student of mine), who does understand patent law, and he says unless there is a commercial application, there is no violation of the patent - ie make one for yourself, you are not infringing.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

I have seen very old guitar's and lutes from hundreds of years ago in book's with fanned frets. So the fanned fret idea is nothing new so i don't know how you can patent something that's already been done.

I also like to add that thing's like fanned frets and buzz feiten system more or less are novelties. You will never be able to build a perfect tempered tuned fretting system . You can get close but not perfect. The close's way I have seen is individual small frets for each string and note. This broken fret method just makes it more dificult to fret chords and bend strings. I think it not being perfect is what adds to the charm and characteristics of the guitar. If you want perfect tuning build yourself a piano.

One of my students is a first class piano tuner - pianos arent perfectly in tune either, they have beats between certain notes on purpose, it will actually sound better. .. you want something that plays perfectly in tune - get a violin.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Thanks great link!

I had found one tutorial on the fanned frets and it used the two scales and connected the dots between.

I've built a couple like Tony has, on my first one I visited Ralph and spent a couple of hours talking to him about the system and how it worked. I paid Ralph a fee for each one that I built, mine have been more extreme than what Tony did, the lower scale was 25.7 and the upper was 24.75. Are their specific questions you wanted answered...

Hi Sprocket (and everyone else)

First off this will be for my acoutic bass project with and internal neckthrough strut construction but freely floating top and back.

I have read from numerous reviews that especially on the 5 strings wiht low B's that 35" and 36" scales are needed to really bring out that low B and was considering a 5 string. But being my first acoustic build with an experimental design I decided to stay more simple and go with a 4 string. I may to a chambered body five string electric at some point.

My main questions was is it as simple as marking your scale for the outer and inner strings and drawing the diagonal line to connect the dots or is it a little more complicated?

My first build was a fretless neck through from a Carvin neck blank so I have not done any fret layouts or figured out any compensation techniques although I have read of one or two and saved them.

Would a first timer on fretboard layout be wiser to stick with the more traditional single scale or does the fanned layout not really add that much more complications?

The fret finder link was cool and I guess I am going to need some extremely accurate measuring tapes or sticks or machined straight edge with very accurate markings?

Any recomendations there?

I did see a Dingwall at the local GC and tried on out for the first time. It really felt suprisingly natural
on bass but I'm not so sure how it would feel on a guitar where you are playing mostly chords. Then again the scale differences are not as large as on the bass.

One last note...I am going to do a jazz style bridge with the RMC graphite piezo saddle pups on top of the jazz bridge with perhaps adjustable saddle intonation to give me a little room for compensation. The neck through struts will terminate into a small slab of hard wood in the tail of the guitar with slotted string ferrules for a semi "strung through the body approach" that should help increase sustain. Plus the weight of this internal block of hardwood will help balance the neck.

A floating magnetic PUP will be up by the neck as in a jazz guitar with a DTAR Eclipse preamp to blend the two.

Marking slot locations - yep, taper the board first, then mark the bass and treble fret scales on the edges, join the dots. Iuse a 24 inch stainless metric rule to do this.

As for which strings - 4 or 5 - I seriously doubt a low B would sound very good on an acoustic bass - unless the soundbox is the size of a double bass. I mean the low B on baritones is good, but taking it down another octave on about the same size box - not worth it IMO.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

[QUOTE=Michael Shaw] I have seen very old guitar's and lutes from hundreds of years ago in book's with fanned frets. So the fanned fret idea is nothing new so i don't know how you can patent something that's already been done. [/QUOTE]

Didn't stop Paul Simon copyrighting Martin Carthy's version of the 300 year old English folk song Scarborough Fair as his did it?

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Marking and cutting the slots is the most critical piece, here's how I do it:

1. I taper my fingerboard to it's final shape, it's important to do this because as you move in and out the scale WILL change, also make sure you nut position is set and ready to go...

2. In my case I printout in 64th's the upper and lower scales.

3. I take a starret ruler and tape it to the fingerboard lining it up with the nut position, I don't want the ruler to move until I'm done.

4. using my list I double check each position and mark it with a sharp exact on the edge of the fingerboard (Cumpiano's method from his book is perfect for this). As I mark each one I mark it off the list, it's easy to get the numbers jumbled here, so I normally have my wife call them out to me as I work down the fingerboard.

5. Double check your marks, trust me on this one :)

6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 for the other side.

Now cutting the slots is somewhat of a challenge, I cut my first %100 by hand and it turned out great. But later I copied a jig from Harry Fleishman to cut the other, it looks like this:



The jig allows me to swing the fingerboard into position and the mark on the polycard (the index line if you will) is actually down against the fingerboard, this prevents paralax when lining up the fingerboard. One note here is that if you use this method you have to mark the backside of your fingerboard as this tool makes you place the face down on the tablesaw.

Cheers

-Paul-

P.S. Here's a better picture:

Sprockett38905.6226157407

_________________
-Paul-

Patriot Guitars

[QUOTE=Colin S] [QUOTE=Michael Shaw] I have seen very old guitar's and lutes from hundreds of years ago in book's with fanned frets. So the fanned fret idea is nothing new so i don't know how you can patent something that's already been done. [/QUOTE]

Didn't stop Paul Simon copyrighting Martin Carthy's version of the 300 year old English folk song Scarborough Fair as his did it?

Colin[/QUOTE]
When it comes to an object like a tool or a piece of machinery or a device you can get a new patent on it if you have made a major inprovement or or even a minor one on a specific part that improves the device. A copyright is totaly diferent then a patent. If you redo a song and you make it so distinctly in your style you can get a new copyright for it. Most folks songs were never copyrighted. If the song he redid was he would have had to get permision and probably pay a royalty to the owner.Plenty of old song have been stolen to make newer songs. Take the Irish classic O danny boy. The music from this song was stolen from an old Irish traditional song called The Derry Air.

[QUOTE=David Collins] Just wait a few weeks - his patent expires at the
end of the this month.

This style of building actually goes back at least 450-500 years on other
lute-family instruments, so I've always seen the patent as questionable. [/
QUOTE]

Next thing youll be seeing the Spanish charging fees to classical builders
for using a Spanish foot. Maybe we should get in early and change the
name. Any suggestions? There cant be any country names incorporated or
implied with the new name. I suggest "International Foot".

The french have done this with certain famous french products like Champaign and Conac and some traditional french foods. They claim no one should be able to use these names for their version of the products. They state Champaign,conac and certain french cheese's are made in a regions these product are named for so no one has a right to use these names. If you want to make these products you have to use a alternative name. They state chaimpaign and conac made out of france are just sparkling wine and brandy. Some other countries followed suit and have claimed the same for regional items. Whats next I'll have to pay a royalty to eat my French toast for breakfast.

[QUOTE=Michael Shaw] [QUOTE=Colin S] [QUOTE=Michael Shaw] I have seen very old guitar's and lutes from hundreds of years ago in book's with fanned frets. So the fanned fret idea is nothing new so i don't know how you can patent something that's already been done. [/QUOTE]

Didn't stop Paul Simon copyrighting Martin Carthy's version of the 300 year old English folk song Scarborough Fair as his did it?

Colin[/QUOTE]
When it comes to an object like a tool or a piece of machinery or a device you can get a new patent on it if you have made a major inprovement or or even a minor one on a specific part that improves the device. A copyright is totaly diferent then a patent. If you redo a song and you make it so distinctly in your style you can get a new copyright for it. Most folks songs were never copyrighted. If the song he redid was he would have had to get permision and probably pay a royalty to the owner.Plenty of old song have been stolen to make newer songs. Take the Irish classic O danny boy. The music from this song was stolen from an old Irish traditional song called The Derry Air. [/QUOTE]

With Scarborough Fair in the UK there are dozens of versions, from a number of sources. There are many alternate verses and tune variations, so every performer puts together their own version, taking pieces, verses, from different sources. Martin Carthy, probably the most influential folk singer of his generation here, showed Paul Simon his version at the Troubadour Club in London.

The version that Paul Simon copyrighted is not distincly his own but is exactly Martin's, down to every note, and word. But all of a sudden heh it ceases to be a traditional English folk song and becomes the "property" of Paul Simon. Should Martin now have to pay Paul so that he can sing his own version? No performer in the UK would ever consider copyrighting any version of one of our traditional songs, we still just list them as 'Traditional', money isn't everything. But maybe to some people it is.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.