Ukuleles and Saddle slant type!

It's only when I got a NEW ukulele (factory setup) with a radiused fretboard that I realised how much I prefer a slanted saddle (slightly higher at the 4th, slightly lower at the 1st).

Especially when tuning low-G.

My new Enya Feather solid mahogany came with an "arched" saddle to complement the radiused fretboard... and while it is well setup I just don't like the saddle being radiused. I have ordered some replacement TUSQ saddles to grind into a slanted saddle.


I also recently acquired a La Patrie nylon string guitar with a radiused fretboard, which also came with an arched saddle much like a steel string guitar would.


Anyone else get put off by arched saddles that complement radiused fretboards?

In all honesty, I prefer flat fretboards on ukuleles.

I probably prefer a radiused fretboard, and would order one if available, but have never really found them to be nearly as much of a benefit on ukulele as they are on guitars - where people argue over whether the proper radius is 7.5", 9.5", 12", or 16". But it's always been a rule of thumb for instrument setup that the saddle matches the curve of the fretboard, modified slightly to get the treble strings a bit lower than the bass. So no, I guess I would think an arched saddle on an Enya is normal. But on a typical flat fretboard I agree that a slight slant downward is the way to go. I can tell you from experience that getting a saddle sanded to give say 0.090" action on the G and 0.085" on the A does take some finesse.

I'm not quite following. What's the issue here? Is it an aesthetic/cosmetic concern? Is the uke not staying in tune? I'm just a bit curious because I have never given my bridges--let alone my saddles--a moment's thought.

If you look carefully, the nut slots should also be cut to match the radius of the fretboard on your Enya.

To make a slanted saddle to work with a radiused fretboard would require starting with the arch as the zero height. Then plotting the precise distances at each string of a flat fretboard and add those to the arc.

In other words, determine your slant and then bend it to the radius.

Otherwise, it will throw the compensation out.

ripock said:

I'm not quite following. What's the issue here? Is it an aesthetic/cosmetic concern? Is the uke not staying in tune? I'm just a bit curious because I have never given my bridges--let alone my saddles--a moment's thought.

Click to expand...

The saddle shape significantly affects the playability.
I am used to the G side being about a mm higher than the A side. It's how I play - I like having the 4th string stick out a bit to suit how I finger pick and arppeggio using low-G string as a sort of bass line.

When I've played like that for years and I come across a saddle that has been lowered into an arch at the G side, it throws me off. The 4th string sitting at a lower action compared to the 3rd string feels awkward.

Kenn2018 said:

If you look carefully, the nut slots should also be cut to match the radius of the fretboard on your Enya.

To make a slanted saddle to work with a radiused fretboard would require starting with the arch as the zero height. Then plotting the precise distances at each string of a flat fretboard and add those to the arc.

In other words, determine your slant and then bend it to the radius.

Otherwise, it will throw the compensation out.

Click to expand...

That is technically correct, however it's a compromise I am willing to make.

I am not doing an extreme slant, but a subtle one. Maybe the G side about 2.5-3.0mm and A side 2.0-2.5mm.

I dont think this is significant enough to throw off the intonation to an extent most people would notice (my ears anyway).

However, the trade-off of having the desirable downwards slant is worth it for me (even if it is contrary to the fretboard radius and nut)

*Ideally* I would have liked this ukulele to have come with a flat fretboard, and both a nut and saddle adopting the high to low slant. I believe this is the traditional way classical guitars are set up.

Having the 4th string sit a bit lower on the saddle compared to the 3rd annoys me for some reason ��

Ultimately, my philosophy is that there isn't really a "right" or "wrong" way to do a setup, it's about matching the instrument to the player's preferences. And knowing enough about how instruments work to understand the implications.

I have set up some tenor guitars roughly as you're explaining. Radiused fretboards, but straight saddles. The saddle is offset so it's lower on the treble side. Since the fretboard is radiused and the saddle is straight, the ultimate effect is that the action increases towards the bass side as the fretboard "curves away" from the straight saddle. Usually it's more subtle than you're describing - more like half a mm in difference in total, vs 1mm. I set the saddle angle so the action on the two treble strings is consistent, and then the curve falls away gradually for the two bass strings. There is an impact to intonation but it's more than easily accommodated for by adjusting the witness point across the width of the saddle, which you should be doing anyways as you set the instrument up. Even a 1/8" saddle has plenty of width to adjust for such a small change, it basically amounts to an extra two or three swipes with a file. This setup works great on a tenor guitar with 5ths tuning since you typically end up with a pretty big spread in string gauges and the extra action is nice on the heavier strings.

I've never done this on a uke because I've never built a uke with a radiused fretboard! I could understand the attraction on a low-g uke with a radiused board though.

There are some who have stated in their blogs that it makes very little difference if you compensate soprano or concert ukuleles. It can affect a tenor, but the difference is barely discernible. It's the baritone when it becomes noticeable.

I can't say that I notice any difference in sound. But rarely I think it may affect the intonation a tad.

It probably boils down to style of play and sensitivity of your hearing more than any other factor. The irony is, if all else is equal (strings are the same material and gauged correctly, action is the same, etc) then there's more of a difference on a shorter scale instrument than a longer scale one. If you have the action set at 2mm, you're displacing the string by 2mm when you push it down. On a shorter scale instrument, that makes for a steeper angle of displacement than on a longer scale instrument. Sometimes I wonder if comments about how it matters less on a soprano are driven more by habits where people are more likely to venture to higher frets on longer scale instruments, or a sort of cultural acceptance that part of the jangly charm of a soprano is due to the intonation being slightly off.

The good news is that a standard 1/8" wide saddle is larger, relatively speaking, on a shorter scale length than a longer one, so you have more wiggle room, relatively, on a shorter instrument. A 1/8" saddle is about 25 cents of adjustment range on a tenor, but it's about 30 cents on a soprano. IME it's typical for a tenor to need about 12 or 15 cents and a soprano maybe 18, so there's plenty of range in most cases.

Mike $ said:

I don't know about a slanted bridge, but I have a radiused fretboard on my guitar and I hate it. It sounded good and I figured I would adjust to the radius, but I still hate it 20+ years later. I won't make that mistake again.

Click to expand...

Which guitar do you own?
Why don't you like your guitar's radiused fretboard?

Normally, people have trouble going to the flat fretboard of a classical guitar.

Almost all electric, acoustic, and the nylon fusion/crossovers have radiused fretboards. Many flamenco guitars are radiused; and recently, many classical guitars (now, here, you've got history and conservatism) even allow you to custom order with a radius.

Now, ukulele radiused fretboard, IMHO, is a bit unnecessary since the uke already has a narrow nut. But, for guitars, a radiused fretboard is generally appreciated.

clear said:

Which guitar do you own?
Why don't you like your guitar's radiused fretboard?

Normally, people have trouble going to the flat fretboard of a classical guitar.

Almost all electric, acoustic, and the nylon fusion/crossovers have radiused fretboards. Many flamenco guitars are radiused; and recently, many classical guitars (now, here, you've got history and conservatism) even allow you to custom order with a radius.

Now, ukulele radiused fretboard, IMHO, is a bit unnecessary since the uke already has a narrow nut. But, for guitars, a radiused fretboard is generally appreciated.

Click to expand...

Personally I think the difficulty on Classical guitar is more attributed to the total width of fretboard rather than lack of radius.
This would affect the ease of bar chords.

Radius to me 'makes sense' on steel string guitars where there is increased string tension across barred chords.
From my personal perspective - radius on nylon string instruments is more a hindrance than an advantage.

dwizum said:

It probably boils down to style of play and sensitivity of your hearing more than any other factor. The irony is, if all else is equal (strings are the same material and gauged correctly, action is the same, etc) then there's more of a difference on a shorter scale instrument than a longer scale one. If you have the action set at 2mm, you're displacing the string by 2mm when you push it down. On a shorter scale instrument, that makes for a steeper angle of displacement than on a longer scale instrument. Sometimes I wonder if comments about how it matters less on a soprano are driven more by habits where people are more likely to venture to higher frets on longer scale instruments, or a sort of cultural acceptance that part of the jangly charm of a soprano is due to the intonation being slightly off.

The good news is that a standard 1/8" wide saddle is larger, relatively speaking, on a shorter scale length than a longer one, so you have more wiggle room, relatively, on a shorter instrument. A 1/8" saddle is about 25 cents of adjustment range on a tenor, but it's about 30 cents on a soprano. IME it's typical for a tenor to need about 12 or 15 cents and a soprano maybe 18, so there's plenty of range in most cases.

Click to expand...

Thanks for making that clearer. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

kissing said:

Personally I think the difficulty on Classical guitar is more attributed to the total width of fretboard rather than lack of radius.
This would affect the ease of bar chords.

Radius to me 'makes sense' on steel string guitars where there is increased string tension across barred chords.
From my personal perspective - radius on nylon string instruments is more a hindrance than an advantage.

Click to expand...

I don't play classical guitars, but I did ask someone knowledgeable about why classical guitars don't have radiused fretboards. The answer was that it was easier to pick the strings evenly. But that only really applies to classical guitars. There are many other style guitars with nylon strings; and having a flat fretboard may not be important (and even a hinderance); for example, flamenco and crossovers, which are generally played with a pick.

A radiused fretboard gives more spacing between the strings for the same nut width than a flat fretboard. But, at the same time, it moves the strings off a plane, making it difficult for the finger pickers. However, if it is strummed, it does not matter much. So, there is a compromise between the finger picking and a radius.

clear said:

I don't play classical guitars, but I did ask someone knowledgeable about why classical guitars don't have radiused fretboards. The answer was that it was easier to pick the strings evenly. But that only really applies to classical guitars. There are many other style guitars with nylon strings; and having a flat fretboard may not be important (and even a hinderance); for example, flamenco and crossovers, which are generally played with a pick.

A radiused fretboard gives more spacing between the strings for the same nut width than a flat fretboard. But, at the same time, it moves the strings off a plane, making it difficult for the finger pickers. However, if it is strummed, it does not matter much. So, there is a compromise between the finger picking and a radius.

Click to expand...

As someone who fingerpicks most of the time, this makes sense

I think a lot of the reasoning is really post hoc. I tend to think the evolution of radiused string plane is probably the result of desire for more ease in playing, especially once higher tension steel string instruments came into more common use. The idea that flat vs radiused is due to fingerpicking or strumming doesn't really make much sense, as I don't really see any inherent advantages of one over the other in this regard. If you learned on a curved fingerboard, it may be what you're most comfortable with. Similar flat fingerboard. I do think the reason for flat fingerboards is largely tradition, and carried over from instruments originating on the Iberian peninsula to other instruments around the globe, such as ukulele, where it remains a vestigial trait. Same with the endless variations of guitar that originate in Latin America and places that had been under the influence of Spanish/Portuguese culture.

Personally, I have no particularly strong opinions on flat fingerboards in general, and would love to have an otherwise classical style guitar with a slightly radiused and narrower fingerboard. One area where I definitely do like the flat fingerboard is on my guitar used for bottleneck slide playing. Which is also steel string, kind of an odd combination. But other than that, I find no advantage for strumming or fingerpicking associated with flat or radiused fingerboards.