Gibson Byrdland to L-5 transition and back

**sgosnell** · 09-23-2016, 09:25 PM

I regularly switch between 25.5", 25", 24.75", 16.25", and 13.75" scales. Granted, the shorter two are different tunings, but I have no problem switching between any of them. I probably look at the fretboard for a little after switching, I've never really noticed, but it certainly doesn't take more than a few bars to get used to it.

**sgosnell** · 09-23-2016, 09:29 PM

I regularly switch between 25.5", 25", 24.75", 16.25", and 13.75" scales. Granted, the shorter two are different tunings, but I have no problem switching between any of them. That's probably because of the physics of music. The frets are the same distance apart on the mandolin as the guitar, when you get to the upper frets on a guitar. Maybe not exactly, but closer than your fingers can distinguish.

**bohemian46** · 09-23-2016, 09:45 PM

I purchased a new Epiphone Elitist Byrdland a few years back.

I like the scale length 23 1/2... the nut with was 1 11/16ths ( I prefer 1 3/4)
My problem with it was that the pickup location was right where I pick (fingerpick.
I eventually sold it.
I would entertain the same guitar with a neck only pickup.. or a similar guitar built as an acoustic with a floating neck pickup.

**plectrum99x** · 09-23-2016, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by citizenk74

In re: 339's post #20, above:

Capoing a 25 1/2" inch scale produces an effective scale length of 24.069"

25.5" divided by 1.0594631 = 24.0687948"

This is somewhat less than 1/2 inch more than the Byrdland's nominal 23 1/2 nominal scale length, but will certainly give you an indication as to whether or not the change might be problematic. It is a cheap and completely reversible experiment.

I hope this helps.

Thank you for your explanation, but by employing the capo you are not altering the distance between frets. An L5 has 20 frets and a 25.5" scale length. The Byrdland has 22 frets over a 23.5" scale. In order to accommodate the extra frets in relation to the reduced scale length, the distance between adjacent frets must necessarily be reduced, and it is this relationship that cannot be reproduced by applying a capo.

**sgosnell** · 09-23-2016, 10:25 PM

That's not how it works.

**plectrum99x** · 09-23-2016, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by sgosnell

That's not how it works.

Perhaps you could explain how it works?
Numerous players have opined in re the Byrd's tight fret distances as one goes up the fingerboard, if that is not due to the 20 -22 frets over a reduced scale length, then what is the explanation?

**sgosnell** · 09-23-2016, 11:01 PM

You can add as many frets as you want, but you don't make them closer together, just put them further up the fretboard. If you put them closer together, it can't play in tune. Fret distances are fixed by mathematics. The 22d fret is closer to the bridge.

**rlrhett** · 09-23-2016, 11:06 PM

Sgosnell is absolutely right. There are scales within scales. 25.5" scale cut one fret short is identical to 24" scale fretboard. Uke builders regularly use fret templates for bass guitars and just start on the twelfth fret to get a 17" scale.

A Byrdland is a 25" scale capo'ed at the first fret. Knowing how Gibson does things, I suspect that is exactly how they arrived at this particular scale length.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**sgosnell** · 09-23-2016, 11:35 PM

Frets obviously get closer together as you move up the fretboard. You could theoretically install frets all the way to the bridge, but eventually they would have to be closer together than the fret width, so there are limits, nevermind that fretting up there would pull the string out of intonation. Mandolins have frets closer together than guitars, simply because the first fret is about where the 10th fret would be on a guitar. It's no surprise that frets get closer together as you get closer to the bridge. It's mathematics, and easy to see by just looking at any fretboard. But the number of frets on an instrument does not change the distance between them at all. It just changes the distance between the highest fret and the bridge. You can keep on adding them as far as you can, if you want. The 22d fret on a Byrdland is much closer to the bridge than the 20th fret on an L5, but you could put more frets on the L5 and they would keep on getting closer together as you approach the bridge. That's dictated by mathematics. You cannot change the required distance between the frets if you want to play in tune.

**JazzNote** · 09-24-2016, 02:42 AM

The scale length divided by 17.817 gives the distance from the nut to the first fret. The remaining distance divided by 17.817 gives the distance from the first to the second fret. (Exerpt from Complete Guitar Repair by Hideo Kamimoto published in 1975)

Continue in this fashion and you will have a fingerboard which plays in tune ....

**plectrum99x** · 09-24-2016, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by sgosnell

Frets obviously get closer together as you move up the fretboard. You could theoretically install frets all the way to the bridge, but eventually they would have to be closer together than the fret width, so there are limits, nevermind that fretting up there would pull the string out of intonation. Mandolins have frets closer together than guitars, simply because the first fret is about where the 10th fret would be on a guitar. It's no surprise that frets get closer together as you get closer to the bridge. It's mathematics, and easy to see by just looking at any fretboard. But the number of frets on an instrument does not change the distance between them at all. It just changes the distance between the highest fret and the bridge. You can keep on adding them as far as you can, if you want. The 22d fret on a Byrdland is much closer to the bridge than the 20th fret on an L5, but you could put more frets on the L5 and they would keep on getting closer together as you approach the bridge. That's dictated by mathematics. You cannot change the required distance between the frets if you want to play in tune.

Your explanation is appreciated, but it does not answer the question as to why players have complained about their fingertips being cramped when playing up the Byrd's fingerboard. If the inter-fret distances remain unchanged as compared to, for example, and L5, their complaints would not be valid.

StewMack has an online fret distance calculator. Accordingly, and taking the inter-fret distance between the 11th and 12 th frets as an example, the distance, with 20 frets and a 25.5" scale would be 0.758". With the same number of frets and a 23.5" scale length the distance would be 0.699". A smaller inter-fret distance is noted throughout the fingerboard, as per the calculator.

Here is a link to the calculator:

https://www.stewmac.com/FretCalculator.html

**Ren** · 09-24-2016, 02:33 PM

I believe the point sgosnell is making is that the distance between consecutive frets depends only on the scale length, not the number of frets. The frets on a shorter scale guitar must be spaced closer than the corresponding frets on a longer scale guitar. The ratio of the corresponding spacings will be the same all across the neck. For example, the fret spacing is about 8.5% wider on an L5 compared to a Byrdland.

**sgosnell** · 09-24-2016, 02:40 PM

Yes, different scale lengths require slightly different fret placement, but your example gives a difference of just over a millimeter. The distance between frets on a Byrdland are almost identical to those on an L5, but a fret higher. Thus the distance between the 11th and 12th frets on a Byrdland are the same as the distance between the 12th and 13th on an L5. Thus the advice you got earlier on - put a capo at the first fret on an L5 and you get the Byrdland. The difference between playing an L5 and a Byrdland is exactly the same as playing in a different key, one step up. G on the Byrdland is the same as Ab on the L5.

But if you don't want to believe any of this, that's fine. You also don't have to believe that the sun rises in the east.

**plectrum99x** · 09-24-2016, 02:43 PM

Hi Ren
That is precisely what I have been implying from the getgo, but most all have appeared to overlook that point. And that is why a capo cannot reproduce the inter fret relationship of a different scale lenght.

**plectrum99x** · 09-24-2016, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by sgosnell

Yes, different scale lengths require slightly different fret placement, but your example gives a difference of just over a millimeter. The distance between frets on a Byrdland are almost identical to those on an L5, but a fret higher. Thus the distance between the 11th and 12th frets on a Byrdland are the same as the distance between the 12th and 13th on an L5. Thus the advice you got earlier on - put a capo at the first fret on an L5 and you get the Byrdland. The difference between playing an L5 and a Byrdland is exactly the same as playing in a different key, one step up. G on the Byrdland is the same as Ab on the L5.

But if you don't want to believe any of this, that's fine. You also don't have to believe that the sun rises in the east.

BTW, those measurements are in inches, not mm.

**Ren** · 09-24-2016, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by plectrum99x

Hi Ren
That is precisely what I have been implying from the getgo, but most all have appeared to overlook that point. And that is why a capo cannot reproduce the inter fret relationship of a different scale lenght.

I'm confused by your conclusion. The observation sgosnell made earlier is that capoing at the first fret on a 25.5 scale neck exactly simulates the fret spacing of a 24 scale guitar. I believe that is correct. The same trick on a 24.75 scale guitar would almost exactly give you the Byrdland scale. So in effect, playing on a Byrdland should feel almost the same as playing on a 175 one step up.

**plectrum99x** · 09-24-2016, 03:26 PM

Ren,
The initial suggestion was to capo my L5, but doing so would not assimilate—by your own estimate—the scale of the Byrd.

Somehow, this thread has gotten out of hand, to wit, Sgosnell's last, somewhat arrogant posting, and I think that I will sign off. But before I go, I should say that my initial query was never really addressed, that being the difference in playability between a 23.5" vs 25.5" scale, but rather, was obfuscated by mathematical computations that, while valid, did little to address my question. But there clearly is a difference in playability in re the shorter scale, otherwise, there would not have been a request for the Byrd and Gibson would not have had risen to the challenge. The question was and is, how big a difference.

**Ren** · 09-24-2016, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by plectrum99x

Ren,
The initial suggestion was to capo my L5, but doing so would not assimilate—by your own estimate—the scale of the Byrd.

Somehow, this thread has gotten out of hand, to wit, Sgosnell's last, somewhat arrogant posting, and I think that I will sign off. But before I go, I should say that my initial query was never addressed, that being the difference in playability between a 23.5" vs 25.5" scale, but rather, was obfuscated by mathematical computations that while valid, did little too address my question. But there clearly is a difference in playability in re the shorter scale, otherwise, there would not have been a request for the Byrd and Gibson would not have had risen to the challenge. And in the end, I suspect that none of the responders to this thread actually own or have played a Byrd, as familiarity with the guitar would have and should have generated a simple response to the initial query rather than this lengthy and unnecessary diatribe.

Plectrum99x,

I confess I've never played a Byrdland. I also admit to being a university math professor who enjoys mathematical computations. I thought the suggestion to try to simulate the Byrdland scale length by capoing the first fret on your L5 was clever, if still a bit off. I have a 175, and I would think that if you tuned down a half step and capoed the first fret, that you'd have a pretty good simulation of the feel of the Byrdland neck.

But you're right, this is no substitute for putting one in your hands. Or hearing from someone who has.

More importantly, putting a capo on an L5 or 175 is an abomination.

So good luck with the quest! If successful, please treat us to a NGD post with pics!

Best,

Ren

**339 in june** · 09-24-2016, 03:56 PM

So, to sum up :
23,5 " scale is shorter than 24,75 " or 25,5 " scales
Thus, fret distance is smaller on a 23,5 " scale than on 24,75 or 25,5.
You can modelize it by using a capo at 1st fret. This will be accurate on a 25 " scale, only approached on an L5.
Making that, you "loose" one fret so you'll not be able to feel what happens at 21st fret (and upper

).
But do you really play that high ?
I don't.
Neither have I a 23,5 " scale guitar.
I just wanted to help, but if you don't want to understand the physics of the guitar that Sgosnell, Ren, JazzNote, rlrhett and I wanted to explain, please don't ask
I quit before being called arrogant.

HTH

**339 in june** · 09-24-2016, 03:58 PM

For a reason, I can't "like" last Ren's post

But I do !

Edit : Done !

**bluznjazz** · 09-24-2016, 03:59 PM

I had the same question before I bought my Byrdland. I have an L5, L4 and the Brydland. Putting a capo on the first fret on the L4, which is 24 3/4 inch scale exactly mimics my Byrdland. I measured the distance on both.

The real issue is cording in the upper register. There is not enough room in the cut a way to get your hand in a proper position, single note playing is not a problem.

**Ren** · 09-24-2016, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by bluznjazz

I had the same question before I bought my Byrdland. I have an L5, L4 and the Brydland. Putting a capo on the first fret on the L4, which is 24 3/4 inch scale exactly mimics my Byrdland. I measured the distance on both.

The real issue is cording in the upper register. There is not enough room in the cut a way to get your hand in a proper position, single note playing is not a problem.

What's it like switching between your L5 and Byrdland? I have two L5s and a 175, same TIs on all of them, and I feel a pretty significant difference between the L5s and 175. The 175 is easier for me to play, and I suspect this is due to both the shorter scale length and the corresponding reduced tension on the strings. I would guess that the contrast between your L5 and Byrd would be even greater.

**bluznjazz** · 09-24-2016, 04:24 PM

There is a noticeable difference between the three scales. My issue is probably not common as I have short fingers and the longer scale guitars pose a problem for me. That said, I have no problem switching back and forth when playing a piece of music that does not require long stretch chords.

As mentioned before, put a capo on the second fret of your L5 and play away. You WILL notice the difference in fret spacing. Once you get used to it, take the capo off.

It sounds like you are getting hung up on the number of frets in your quest of understanding.

Trust me on this one, the issue is access of the fretting hand and the cut a way.

Bill

**Ren** · 09-24-2016, 05:42 PM

In case the OP is still reading this thread, I'm wondering what sparked your interest in the Byrdland, as opposed to exploring some of the guitars in the 24.75 scale family like the L4 or 175. This would seem to me a more gradual contrast in scale length to explore. For me, I love my L5s but it's nice to have a 175 in the family. On my bucket list is the L4, which I think of as a hybrid between the L5 and 175. I really want one of these, though I'm bummed that Gibson isn't making them with ebony fretboards anymore. (Another bucket list guitar of mine that doesn't exist is a single pup P90 ES5. Also but in a different way an L5 / 175 mixture.) I guess in general I'm interested in what motivates our guitar searches and acquisitions.

**JazzNote** · 09-24-2016, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by plectrum99x

Somehow, this thread has gotten out of hand, to wit, Sgosnell's last, somewhat arrogant posting, and I think that I will sign off. But before I go, I should say that my initial query was never really addressed, that being the difference in playability between a 23.5" vs 25.5" scale, but rather, was obfuscated by mathematical computations that, while valid, did little to address my question. But there clearly is a difference in playability in re the shorter scale, otherwise, there would not have been a request for the Byrd and Gibson would not have had risen to the challenge. The question was and is, how big a difference.

plectrum, i believe Sgognell's post is not as arrogant as you perceive it. I also believe that the mathematical computations were used mainly to prove that the concept with the capo is valid. This concept certainly is the most practical way to try out the difference of the two scale lengths without having to acquire another instrument with a shorter scale. So in my opinion your question IS addressed. With the knowledge of the given information you are able to find the answer for yourself but you have to believe what is said and really do that "capo thing". However, the feel for the shorter scale could be a bit "clouded" because tuning down would result in lower string tension.