Corrective Nuts And Zero Frets.

[frank falbo]

Um...noooo. When you tune the guitar to pitch, and the nut fulcrum is compensated closer to the bridge, it means that the note will be on pitch at the open note, and then it will be slightly flatter when fretted, to compensate for the squeeze sharp. Imagine if the nut was moved up to 1/4" behind the first fret. If you tuned the guitar to concert pitch open, the notes would be very flat, out of tune, and out of scale when fretted. Sorry.

[mledbetter]

oh.. i gotcha.. because the scale length is altered slightly, so the pitch is altered relatively as well. Makes sense.

[GregP]

I can see where you're coming from, but it's taking a premise too far. A compensated nut really IS only for correcting the first few frets.

Back when I was initially researching, Buzz Feitin's site actually SAID that a zero fret eliminates the need (the NEED, not just the possibility) for a compensated nut.

I looked again, and that tune isn't being sung anymore. Probably too many people got wise and started installing zero frets.

Greg

[frank falbo]

If that's what BF said, he's just wrong. With all due respect, he didn't invent compensation. (aside from the "compen$ation" he receives from licensing HA!) You know what eliminates the "need" for one? Your playing style and string gauge. I don't need it. I play in such a way that it's a waste of time. But if you've got a "squeezer", they're pulling notes sharp every time they fret. Even with stealth nut slots or a zero fret, they'll still pull the G string sharp on an open E chord. It's got nothing to do with the height of what's behind it, and everything to do with the space between the string and the fretboard. Unless you have very shallow frets, digging that string into that gap pulls it sharp. As you go up the neck, it's less apparent. You're approaching center (12th fret) and the string is more sympathetic on each end. And because the fret are closer together, making it progressively harder to pull the note sharp into that gap. So I agree it's mostly apparent in the first few frets. I was just saying that it's not "disengaged" once someone frets a note.

BTW, if any of this sounds confrontational it's not, I can't tell how it's reading.

[MasterMinds]

I like the zero fret also because it makes consistant sounds. we all love the sound of an open string, i wish i could have every note sound that way - but I'd rather they all be consistant. sometimes in a song a chord with open and closed notes sounds garbly to me.

Before someone considers any corrective issues - they out to test - on a GOOD tuner - whether their nut/string/fretboard and playing style is worth correcting.

you have to see there's a problem befroe you treat - chances are there is a problem but you never know. you might like shorter frets anyhow.

[rhoads56]

[GregP]

Frank-- perhaps somebody convinced Buzz that he was wrong, and hence the new literature. Also, while I know exactly what you're saying about the 'G' string, and you're completely correct, that's why a zero fret is a better option than a plain old nut-- because the distance that you're 'digging in' is less.

On a properly cut nut, you should be getting the same action as a zero fret. But how often do we see those properly cut nuts? And then there's the consistency of tone put forward by MasterMinds... some people like it, but some people WANT to have that characteristic sound of hearing the nut, which is part of what causes the "open chord" sound for some people!

A compensated nut isn't a horrible idea, and I'm not against it. Some day, I may very well have a guitar with such a nut. But in the meantime, I think that a zero fret will give similar returns for intonation, with less time spent shaping an ultra-precise nut or doing a compensated nut. A compensated nut that doesn't have grooves that are the right depth is STILL compensating for something that's better fixed with a better nut-job or a zero fret.

Greg

[rhoads56]

A compensated nut that doesn't have grooves that are the right depth is STILL compensating for something that's better fixed with a better nut-job or a zero fret.

Greg

←

why would someone go to the trouble of making a compensated nut, and not get the slot depth right?? Compensated nuts arent just shaping a block of bone into what you think is correct, it is a lot of work to get them right.

[GregP]

Doesn't my post take that into account? If not-- you can make an incorrectly slotted compensated nut just as easily as you can make an incorrectly slotted normal nut. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

I'm mostly thinking of the people who buy pre-compensated nuts like the Earvana, and then at BEST try to size the slots accordingly. Just because someone has a compensated nut doesn't mean they're a craftsman or are going to do a good job of it.

On the other hand, I now have no doubt that a properly-slotted AND compensated nut is the best that nut 'technology' has to offer. The thread has made me think about it a lot more deeply, and I agree that a finely crafted compensated nut has got to be better than a mere zero fret in terms of intonation (if not consistency of tone).

But, in a way that brings me full circle-- a zero fret is simply the best option for people who want consistency of tone, ease of installation, and very close to flawless (not even a compensated nut can promise 'flawless' by nature of the beast) intonation. It's amazing to me that more people don't use them. You say that "a lot of work goes into making a correct one" and I agree. Which is why I wager that there are a LOT of incorrectly made ones out there, and that few people have the skill or dedication to make one properly. A dedicated professional luthier like you is able to make them, and can use them to help justify the boutique prices on your finely-crafted guitars.

Change your string guage of preference, and all that compensated nut precision can be thrown out the window, too. Certain principles still apply, so it'll likely still work to a certain degree, but it won't be the same.

Greg

[rhoads56]

Sorry Greg, but a zero fret in no way compares to a compensated nut. I dont fit compensated nuts to my guitars as standard, simply because 99.9% of the guitarists out there, CAN NOT hear that their open chords are out, so whats the point?

A zero fret does nothing more than a correctly slotted standard nut can do, and visaversa. The only difference is a slight tone difference for the open notes, when the nut is bone, etc.

[MasterMinds]

Sorry Greg, but a zero fret in no way compares to a compensated nut. I dont fit compensated nuts to my guitars as standard, simply because 99.9% of the guitarists out there, CAN NOT hear that their open chords are out, so whats the point?

A zero fret does nothing more than a correctly slotted standard nut can do, and visaversa. The only difference is a slight tone difference for the open notes, when the nut is bone, etc.

←

A guitars tension near the first inches of the nut cause the notes to be sharpened.

a nut will flat them a bit, to compensate for the nut.

a zero fret moves the tensioned part of the string away from the first fret - thus moving the area that's sharpe.

the two are "in all ways" comparing to each other.

[Devon Headen]

a zero fret moves the tensioned part of the string away from the first fret - thus moving the area that's sharpe.

←

I'll admit I haven't studied zero frets much. How does a zero fret do that? It really doesn't make much sense to me

[MasterMinds]

a zero fret moves the tensioned part of the string away from the first fret - thus moving the area that's sharpe.

←

I'll admit I haven't studied zero frets much. How does a zero fret do that? It really doesn't make much sense to me

←

On a zero fret, the strings ALL rest on a fret, all the time. The role of the nut as resting strings is removed - and so, if a normal nut is cause for sharpening and flat, then that won't be occur.

On a corrective nut, it moves the nut position seperate for each string right? This is to deal with tension occuring at the nut.

But, on a zero fret system, the open fret is not cause for (much) tension - and the "nut" on a zero fret acts merely as a holder for the strings not to slide off the guitar. So where's the tension occuring? Way back at the tuning pegs, way out of the way of the fretting areas, thus removing the tension from the playing area.

Edited April 3, 2005 by MasterMinds

[Devon Headen]

The tension would still fall on the angle breaking point. Unless I really am missing something, I am definitely going to have to agree with Perry. I don't see any benefits to a zero fret other than uniform tone for the open position. I guess if you don't know how to cut a nut properly there could be advantages, but that certainly seems like a cop-out to me.

[GregP]

Haven't I been saying ALL ALONG that a zero fret will be the same for intonation as a perfectly cut normal nut, difference in tone being a separate issue?

<shrug>

If you're looking for more of an argument, Perry, you won't find it here.

However, the assumption that they'd be used by more manufacturers if they were great is a fallacy in logic called, "ad populem" which means that you are using other people's preferences as an argument. People do it every day, but that doesn't make it any less of a flawed argument.

It's not like I never looked into these things, and part of the problem with my guitar's progress is that I research TOO MUCH. Technicians, Buzz Feitin's site, Koch's book, a different forum, have all supported the idea of zero fret as a good one. All I ever said was, "don't overlook it because of elitism", which a lot of people seem willing to do.

Greg

[rhoads56]

a zero fret moves the tensioned part of the string away from the first fret - thus moving the area that's sharpe.

←

I'll admit I haven't studied zero frets much. How does a zero fret do that? It really doesn't make much sense to me

←

On a zero fret, the strings ALL rest on a fret, all the time. The role of the nut as resting strings is removed - and so, if a normal nut is cause for sharpening and flat, then that won't be occur.

On a corrective nut, it moves the nut position seperate for each string right? This is to deal with tension occuring at the nut.

But, on a zero fret system, the open fret is not cause for (much) tension - and the "nut" on a zero fret acts merely as a holder for the strings not to slide off the guitar. So where's the tension occuring? Way back at the tuning pegs, way out of the way of the fretting areas, thus removing the tension from the playing area.

←

what a load of bollocks.

[Setch]

As ever Perry, you capture a long rambling rebuttal by me, and express it just as eloquently in 5 words.

The quoted paragraph is pure, 24 karat, solid gold BS.

[GregP]

It's true only that a zero fret significantly lowers the downward angle and therefore increased tension caused by fretting in the first few frets... the tension 'behind the nut' has nothing to do with it....

I've notice a few people lately that think the position of machine heads and other headstock details affect tension, which it does not.

If I had long enough strings, and a headstock that was fifty yards long with the machine heads at the other end, it would require the exact same string tension as a Les Paul in order to get a .10 "E" string to pitch.

Greg

[westhemann]

a zero fret moves the tensioned part of the string away from the first fret - thus moving the area that's sharpe.

←

I'll admit I haven't studied zero frets much. How does a zero fret do that? It really doesn't make much sense to me

←

On a zero fret, the strings ALL rest on a fret, all the time. The role of the nut as resting strings is removed - and so, if a normal nut is cause for sharpening and flat, then that won't be occur.

On a corrective nut, it moves the nut position seperate for each string right? This is to deal with tension occuring at the nut.

But, on a zero fret system, the open fret is not cause for (much) tension - and the "nut" on a zero fret acts merely as a holder for the strings not to slide off the guitar. So where's the tension occuring? Way back at the tuning pegs, way out of the way of the fretting areas, thus removing the tension from the playing area.

←

what a load of bollocks.

←

i agree...i think "masterminds" needs to study a bit more so that he can see that the root problem being solved by a compensated nut is not incorrect slot depth,as he seems to believe.

unfortunately,i feel that a man(assumption,as thedoctor knows i may be jumping to conclusions) who argues based on assumption more than 80% of the time may never open his mind far enough to really learn

[Devon Headen]

a zero fret moves the tensioned part of the string away from the first fret - thus moving the area that's sharpe.

←

I'll admit I haven't studied zero frets much. How does a zero fret do that? It really doesn't make much sense to me

←

On a zero fret, the strings ALL rest on a fret, all the time. The role of the nut as resting strings is removed - and so, if a normal nut is cause for sharpening and flat, then that won't be occur.

On a corrective nut, it moves the nut position seperate for each string right? This is to deal with tension occuring at the nut.

But, on a zero fret system, the open fret is not cause for (much) tension - and the "nut" on a zero fret acts merely as a holder for the strings not to slide off the guitar. So where's the tension occuring? Way back at the tuning pegs, way out of the way of the fretting areas, thus removing the tension from the playing area.

←

what a load of bollocks.

←

The rather blunt version of what I was trying to say. I'm not being closeminded, I'm just saying that without further proof a nut is working just fine for me.

[frank falbo]

I think we can all agree on the following:

When you fret a note, you are pulling it slightly sharp. Who cares whether you're compensating for it at the bridge, nut, neither, or both.

If a nut is cut to the exact same height as the frets used on the guitar (conceding some people like it a little higher than that) there's no difference in the tune of the instrument between them. Most of the time, nuts are cut a little higher than that. And I've seen zero fret guitars with larger fretwire used for the zero fret. This increase the squeeze tension a little, and cleans up the open notes a little. But it also makes the slight pitch changes caused by fretting more apparent.

There's also a big tonal difference between a nut and a zero fret. A zero fret sounds like all the other notes on the guitar, while a nut sounds different depending on the material.

Th 12th fret is the center point. As you get closer to the nut, or closer to the bridge, the string goes more out of tune, which is why we compensate the bridge. That's only attacking the problem at one end. So you also are overcompensating to a point.

The rest we don't have to agree on, like does a compensated nut work, or whatever. We've all been doing just fine with regular nuts and zero frets until recently. It's a fix, and if you don't hear the need for it in your playing, then forget about it. It's like acoustic guitars didn't have compensated saddles until recently either, and we were all just fine. But a compensated acoustic saddle is an improvement nonetheless. IMO no on can argue that anything does what a compensated nut does. It's different than a low cut nut or a zero fret.

[GregP]

I'd agree with all of that.

[Setch]

I'll drink to that, Frank.

That said, I find it hard to believe that there are many guitarists out there who don't hear the problem a compensated nut is addressing. I'm a dedicated hack, and even I can spot that if I tweak my tuning so a D (cowboy chord) sounds good, barre chords low down the neck suffer, and vice versa. I know I'll be playing around with compensated nuts soon, it just makes sense.

[MasterMinds]

GregP - You are still stating the false notion that the tension at the headstock plays no role, and that is simply not true.

EXAMPLE

Pick up any acoustic or electric with no locking tremelo. pluck the headstock to nut "G" string while bending the nut to bridge of the G string. The string pitch changes. Now pluck the normal part of the G string while pushing down on the headstock to nute part of the g string. Again, the pitch changes.

As you can clearly and empirically see (unless all hope is lost) pushing down on the part of the string BEFORE or AFTER the nut always affects the opposite side of the string. Tension at the tuning peg will inhibit the pulling of the string upwards towards the headstock, and instead pull more towards the side of the bridge.

The nut does not magically cut off forces acting on the upper string, unless it is a locking nut. All forces and all movement at that end is affecting the FULL string, as I have shown above. In your last paragraph, you refer to the tension caused by tuning a string to pitch. You're misunderstanding what tension is, let me educate you. tension is a type of force - like weight.

Tension is defined as the force caused by a stationary object witholding the will of movement to another stationary object. standard physics.

When you tie a string tight, to two polls - one on each end. There are three forces occuring on the string. one is gravitation, the other two are tension. on each end there is one tension force, it points from the pole towards the center of the string.

Another standard formula will show you that this force decreases in NEWTONS (that's the measurement of a force, more newtons more weight et.c...) as you move towards the center. Now, if you're not familiar with physics in two dimensions, let me give you a simple rule.

A force acting in one dimension can have NO affect (no dimensional reprocussions) in other dimensions. The tension force of a string acts along the string. A nut cannot affect this force, by the very definition of newtons laws. So, if you saw that the nut has anything to do with tension, you're saying newtonian physics are flawed.

That's a bold statement.

It's true only that a zero fret significantly lowers the downward angle and therefore increased tension caused by fretting in the first few frets... the tension 'behind the nut' has nothing to do with it....

I've notice a few people lately that think the position of machine heads and other headstock details affect tension, which it does not.

If I had long enough strings, and a headstock that was fifty yards long with the machine heads at the other end, it would require the exact same string tension as a Les Paul in order to get a .10 "E" string to pitch.

Greg

←

Edited April 3, 2005 by MasterMinds

[GregP]

MM, you are completely wrong, and I don't know how to explain it. It once took me 4 pages of threads to convince someone, and I don't have the energy to do it with you, given your past track record for being able to listen and digest information. Let me try a short version:

Of course pressing down behind the nut affects pitch, because you are changing the tension on the string. Now, without taking your finger off the string, get someone to re-tune the string so that it's a "G" again. You have now returned string tension to its original amount (ie. before you stuck your finger on it). That does not change my argument that position of machine heads, etc., has absolutely no effect on the needed tension to bring a string to pitch.

If anything, my claim SUPPORTS the laws of physics. It does not refute them. It's not a bold statement, it's an obvious one.

Greg