Corrective Nuts And Zero Frets.

[fryovanni]

QUOTE(fryovanni @ Apr 4 2005, 01:14 AM)

MM- If you read this, Stop posting formulas that don't work. If you want to do your homework  (test it first), then post. Some people new to building would use your formula and F_up their project  . That is not cool at all. You know what I am talking about. Enough said.

Why don't you head over to physicsforums.com and see what they think? I already discussed this with them and posted to this thread, so they'll know what you're talking about.

It's a simple function of two-dimensional physics that a force in one dimension cannot have an affect in any other dimensions. A tension force on a string runs in the dimension of the string. The nut does not have the ability to create forces in this dimension, except one force, which is friction. Therefore the nut cannot possible cause tension on a string.

Sorry if people think I am wrong - but I side with physics, not with misinformation. I find it sad that no one here will bother to confirm this undeniable fact with other physicists, and continue to work from false information.

Hello... I am talking about your fret placement formula. No two dimensional physics, force, tension, friction. Just false information and the undeniable fact that you don't check your own work before passing it off.

I am not interested in discussing your formula with anyone. Frankly the only thing I do not want to happen is have someone use the formula you posted on this board in a tutorial section(that new builders look to for reliable information). It does not work. The fact that you can't even tell (or seem to care) the formula is wrong, even after I posted a formula that would work for you to reference. Tells me you don't even have a basic grasp of what you are trying to calculate(fret placement). Rant and ramble around all you want I don't care. Just don't pass off bad information that new builders will be using (thats really rude. ). Man, I was just dropping a side note to you and was going to leave it at that.

Ok, you can go back to your physics debate. Have a nice day

[rhoads56]

A zero fret doesn't compensate.  That much has been proven in this thread; however, in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut, which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note upon a string's pitch.  To that extent, the two things are related and therefore have something to do with each other. 

Greg

←

No, thats incorrect. A zero fret and a perfectly cut nut will have the same amount of "compensation" as each other.... that being ZERO. All strings will still go sharp when fretted, which how a compensated nut works. The nut position relative to the frets is shorter, so when the notes are fretted, it has compensated for the increased tension induced by fretting.

Id suggest you try playing on a guitar with and without a compensated nut (eg: compensated vs zero/standard), have a strobe tuner handy, and play all the notes from 0-6 and see the difference (in fact, the difference is SO noticable, you only need the tuner there to prove which one is "right").

[frank falbo]

I think Greg's just saying that the higher the nut slot is, the further sharp the note will go during fretting. Both the zero fret and a well cut nut "minimize" that effect, and he's saying that alone might make someone not feel as if they absolutely need a compensated nut, regardless of the fact that the compensated nut is still an improvement.

As I said before, I don't think I need a compensated nut, and I have perfect pitch (oops I forgot it doesn't exist) I just have a relaxed way of fretting notes when necessary, and tune in a tempered fashion by ear. It's probably the perfect pitch that caused me to subconsciously develop that playing style over the years. So if I did a compensated nut for myself, with a strobe, I'd probably find it to be much more mildly compensated than one I'd do for a hard squeezer. Don't get me wrong, I squeeze hard when the emotion calls, especially during lead parts. But my normal chording is light. That's another key factor. A compensated nut is made for the player, not just the guitar. In the same way, if you have a player that likes high SRV action and a banana bowed neck, you intonate to that, rather than give it your "sweet low action setup" and then set the intonation.

[GregP]

Perry,

The first words of the very passage you quoted said, "a zero fret doesn't compensate".

So who are you arguing with?

Damn that's frustrating....

I was going to post more, but there's no point in it if you're going to offhandedly respond that way.

Greg

[rhoads56]

Perry,

The first words of the very passage you quoted said, "a zero fret doesn't compensate".

So who are you arguing with?

Damn that's frustrating....

Greg

←

""""in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut, which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note upon a string's pitch. To that extent, the two things are related and therefore have something to do with each other. """"

[GregP]

Perry,

Quit being a **** and read it again....

Greg

Watch the Language and Name Calling

Edited April 6, 2005 by Scott Rosenberger

[rhoads56]

Greg, youve said "a zero fret doesn't compensate", then contradicted yourself with "in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut". INCORRECT. It is LITERALLY PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

A zero fret is no comparison to a compensated nut. NOT EVER. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Have you ever cut a compensated nut?? Have you ever played one???

I'll say it again....

A zero fret and a correctly cut nut are NO DIFFERENT, not the pitch when open, fretted, feel, etc. A zero fret is just a different way of doing a simple nut job.

And i'll also point out, that most zero frets i see, seem to be either a different size fret wire, or installed AFTER the frets are levelled, therefore giving them a higher action than a "fret" would have, and therefore further out of tune in the first five or so frets.

[GregP]

I didn't contradict myself at all.

You seem to have communication problems. Instead of getting riled up, try giving other people some credit for intelligent thought. I like you... I LOVE your work... I respect you as a luthier... but right now you're making it really difficult to respect you as an intelligent communicator and individual.

Like I said, read it again.

While you're at it, learn to extend a little respect of your own to people. I'd never deny that you know more about guitars than me, but I still can't figure out why you think we have differing opinions, when we don't... or why you think I don't understand what compensation does, which I do.

Read not only my post, but also frank's... he seemed to get what I was saying.

Greg

[rhoads56]

in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut, which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note upon a string's pitch.

I have a problem with that statement Greg, why can you not see that it is wrong?? Reducing a problem is not fixing a problem.

Im not getting riled up, im pointing out you are wrong. Theres a difference. Maybe you DONT KNOW you're wrong, but while you make statements like the one above, you are.

[Devon Headen]

After a quick reading of all your posts, I know why Perry is getting the feeling he's getting. You (GregP) apparently aren't meaning to, but it sounds like you're touting a zero fret as the end all for perfect action and intonation. Reading deeper into you're posts I realize you're simply saying that a zero fret has the same effect as a properly cut nut. When you say that a zero fret accomplishes the same goal as a compensated nut is when you're not making much sense.

[rhoads56]

thankyou Devon.

[GregP]

<shrug>

I still don't see where we're disagreeing. <sigh>

It's like you're LOOKING for a fight or something. And yes, you WERE getting riled up. It's as clear as the bold letters, triple question marks, and adversarial 'tone' with the "have you ever cut a compensated nut", which was thrown in my face after I've already clearly demonstrated not only elsewhere on the forum but in this very thread that I'm even less than an amateur.

I don't need to eat a *** sandwich to know that it's going to taste bad, and I don't need to have cut a nut in order to understand why a compensated nut is the best solution (which I agreed with as far back as page 3 of this thread, VERY explicitly).

I haven't missed your point at all, Perry, but I think you may have done.

And Devon-- I appreciate your diplomacy, but it doesn't take ANY deep reading to see that I've said a zero fret accomplishes the same goal as a properly cut normal nut. That EXACT statement can be found earlier in the thread, along with my contention that a compensated nut is the best solution. I haven't touted zero fret as the be-all and end-all at all, but I WILL continue defending it as a viable option, because it IS a viable option. People have used it successfully, will continue to use it successfully, and should continue considering it as an option particularly if they're not highly skilled at crafting nuts (even normal ones, never mind compensated which is a whole other level) and would otherwise end up with a guitar that has dubious intonation issues.

It's like suddenly it's "dangerous" to recommend a zero fret? What, I'm ONLY supposed to recommend compensated nuts just because it's the only way to accurately compensate on both ends? We're all here to share perspectives, and I've shared mine. It's valid, I haven't disseminated false information, and I'd appreciate being given a bit of credit for having a brain. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Greg

Edited for Language

Edited April 6, 2005 by Scott Rosenberger

[rhoads56]

Greg, let me assure you nothing anyone says or does on the net can get me riled up. Especially over a nut. Using caps certainly aint getting riled up, its called making something more noticable.

Please clarify what you mean by this, because I DO NOT agree:

in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut, which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note upon a string's pitch.

[LGM Guitars]

I haven't read this whole thread, don't really want to now that it's 6 pages long, I've only read this page, I'll just chime in to add that:

1. Zero frets suck, I hate them, they look stupid, they're a pain in the ass to deal with when they wear, and they're much more difficult to properly replace than a properly cut nut.

2. Zero frets will do nothing close to what a compensated nut will. They will never act as a compensated nut period. Whether it's a standard nut, or a zero fret, they both accomplish the identical thing. The only fret that becomes critical with a nut or zero fret, is the 1st fret. If your nut action is to high it affects overall action, but if it's to low, it ONLY affects the open note, after the 1st fret is fretted, your nut or zero fret is irrelevant when it comes to fret buzz.

So, what does the nut or zero fret accomplish, it will affect how much the string goes sharp when you fret a note. The lower the nut action, the less the string goes sharp, the higher, the more sharp it will play.

Now, a compensated nut adjusts the scale length somewhat, think of it as intonation. Remember, your adjustment at the bridge will ONLY affect fretted notes. The string behind your finger no longer comes into play when you talk intonation at the bridge.

The compensated nut is basically intonation at the nut, like your bridge, only now, it is affecting the open note since you are actually changing the scale length of the open string. By having less tension on the string (short scale length) you reduce the amount of tension placed on the string when you push it down. OF course each string and each scale length has a different tension, so the compensated nut adjusts for the amount of tension change when the string is fretted, equallizing it somewhat. This is what gives you better intonation with a compensated nut. It has changed the tension of the string overall. This allows the guitar to be in closer fretted tune with itself than harmonic tune. (ever notice how a guitar where the intonation isn't set can be perfectly in tune with 5th and 7th fret harmonics, but when you fret the 5th to open it's way off?)

Anyway, this is wordy and confusing, I didn't understand how most of it worked until I took the Buzz Feiten course, but it does work, I find that the average person will never notice the difference even if they think they have great pitch, but you notice a huge difference on the strobe tuner.

So, in conclusion, properly cut nut, and zero fret, identical idea.

Compensated nut, something completely different.

So, this comment

in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut, which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note upon a string's pitch. To that extent, the two things are related and therefore have something to do with each other

Is completely false, a zero fret will never accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut.

[rhoads56]

It's like suddenly it's "dangerous" to recommend a zero fret?  What, I'm ONLY supposed to recommend compensated nuts just because it's the only way to accurately compensate on both ends?  We're all here to share perspectives, and I've shared mine.  It's valid, I haven't disseminated false information, and I'd appreciate being given a bit of credit for having a brain.  I don't think that's too much to ask. 

Greg

←

Its not dangerous, why would it be??? Its simply a different way of doing things.

You have shared your point of view, and thats great, but when you state that a zero fret achieves the same goal as a compensated nut, you are most certainly incorrect.

Please clarify your statement.

[GregP]

It means:

a) "in some cases"

So, for example, somebody with a light touch

b ) "it can accomplish"

A successful result can be reached

c) "the same goal as a compensated nut"

Both are aimed at doing the same thing, which is to minimize intonation problems

d) "which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note on a string's pitch"

See above.

It's pretty clear English.

I didn't say they have exactly the same success rate, and nor did I say they were directly compatible. They DO share a common goal, and the degree to which they're successful will depend on different things.

If your contention is that a compensated nut FIXES the problem, then I would have to disagree. Maybe yours do, for your guitar, in your shop, but for somebody buying an Earvana, mileage may vary. And an Earvana IS a compensated nut, a respected one, and a heavily sold one. But if you can tell me that its compensation will be consistent for every single guitar out there (obviously, other factors such as a plain old shitty guitar that will NEVER be in tune aside) then I'd have to concede the point. But I think you'll find that from guitar to guitar, player to player, and string guage to string guage, that a compensated nut ALSO only words to "reduce" the impact of fretting a string.

Both systems can ONLY reduce, not completely "fix" the problem. That's the nature of a guitar.

If you say that a compensated nut is BETTER for the job, I haven't disagreed. As far back as page 3, I've consistently agreed with this point, and THAT's why I say we're not in disagreement.

As for the getting riled up: only a poorly-tempered person would get riled up over the nut argument, that's for sure. Which is why I think your choice of when and where to capitalize and when and where to use triple question marks could have been better thought out. I'm certain I'm not the only person who would interpret that post as adversarial.

Greg

[rhoads56]

 

The compensated nut is basically intonation at the nut, like your bridge, only now, it is affecting the open note since you are actually changing the scale length of the open string.  By having less tension on the string (short scale length) you reduce the amount of tension placed on the string when you push it down.  OF course each string and each scale length has a different tension, so the compensated nut adjusts for the amount of tension change when the string is fretted, equallizing it somewhat.  This is what gives you better intonation with a compensated nut.  It has changed the tension of the string overall.  This allows the guitar to be in closer fretted tune with itself than harmonic tune.  (ever notice how a guitar where the intonation isn't set can be perfectly in tune with 5th and 7th fret harmonics, but when you fret the 5th to open it's way off?) 

←

Correct Jeremy, but this is not why a compensated nut works. The effect of string tension difference between a standard and compensated nut is so minimal, its insignificant. The frets are effectively closer to the nut (because a compensated nut is closer to the bridge, while the frets remain in "standard" position).

So, when you fret a note, its as if the fret is moved somewhat towards the nut, which drops the pitch. Because your fretting a note, and therefore raising the pitch to "bend" the string towards the fret, the two somewhat cancel each other out (increased tension and pitch vs fret position relative to "normal").

It is more about the frets position relative to the nut, than the decrease in string tension by a smaller string length (not scale length).

[mledbetter]

in fairness to greg.. his words were "in some cases.. it can accomplish the same goal" Different people have different threshholds for tolerating improper intonateion. If a zero fret makes their guitar play "in tune" to them then it has accomplished that goal. Maybe they have only played guitars woth poorly cut nuts..

bottom line was he sais "in some cases" so jumping on him doesn't make sense. Not when there are people like MM on here who so perfectly deserve our scorn You seem rather hostile whether you mean to or not and for pete's sake.. it's just a damn nut.

I don't like zero frets, i'll never build one and I said several posts back that a perfectly cut nut and a zero fret do the same damn thing. Honestly, i don't even need an earvana. I have gotten by fine without it.

I thought this post would have wrapped up after we proved to MM that a compensated nut BEHIND a zero fret is ludicrous..

Anyway.. cheers to all, have a good evening and laugh a little.

[rhoads56]

It means:

a) "in some cases"

So, for example, somebody with a light touch

b ) "it can accomplish"

A successful result can be reached

c) "the same goal as a compensated nut"

Both are aimed at doing the same thing, which is to minimize intonation problems

d) "which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note on a string's pitch"

See above.

←

Youve missed the point entirely again Greg. A zero nut is not used to help fix intonation problems, its used because its easier for workshops/factories to do. Which is why its seen on more cheap guitars than expensive ones. A zero fret is no more compensated than a correctly installed nut. We agree on that. A compensated nut is by far and away, a MUCH better method for correct intonation.

Im not even going to bother with your earvana comments.

[LGM Guitars]

Right Perry, my wording isn't clear enough, my understanding is, my ability to explain may not be. That's where I put "equalizing" the tension, I meant in the fretted note. Anyway, it's all moot, most people would never hear the difference, and, for what it's worth, every nut will possibly be slight different on the strobe to get it perfectly, and, it can theoretically change with a new set of strings if the strings aren't made to an exact tolerance, it also will change with different guages of strings, but, it will keep you much closer.

Personally, I don't see the real need for compensated nuts for myself, my playing style doesn't require it, but I have never seen a need for a zero fret, I think they're dumb in pretty much every aspect LOL

[LGM Guitars]

One last point, I was reading back a few pages and read a couple comments on the zero fret moving the string break point closer to the 1st fret, it doesn't, not at all, the zero fret is placed so the crown is in the exact same position that a standard nut's front face would be placed on a non zero fret guitar.

[rhoads56]

bottom line was he sais "in some cases" so jumping on him doesn't make sense.

←

Thats the point. It should read "in NO cases...". They are two entirely different things, and when you guys have done hundreds of these installs, and many many setups etc every week, day in and day out, you will realise this. Viewing and playing a handful of guitars will not give you the knowledge to see this...

And as for fretting lightly, you shouldnt have to. My compensated nuts are installed and trimmed with the client there, so HIS hands and fretting technique all play a part in it being perfect.

[GregP]

I haven't missed the point...

I also never said that the raison d'etre of a zero fret was to fix intonation.

If anything, I'd be the first person to say that they're mostly used to make a difficult job easy.

It's just that...

Well...

The title of this THREAD was about zero frets vs. compensated, and so I'm discussing zero frets with regard to intonation issues. When I was reasearching my current build, the local luthier I talked to is the one who helped me choose zero fret. He's a certified Buzz Feitin installation guy, which is how I got a hold of him in the first place. I called him up, basically so that I could find out what I'd need to do with my build in order to get a Buzz Feitin nut put on my guitar. After a lot of discussion, he said, "Or, you could use a zero fret."

Was he saying that it was superior or the same? No. Have I said that it's superior or the same? No. My words have just been misunderstood.

<sigh>

It's a bit disappointing to see the obvious lack of communication going on here, and to be honest, it's hardly worth it. I could have just kept my mouth shut and let all the experts do their expert things without interjecting an intelligently formed and expressed opinion. Would have made it a lot easier.

Greg

[rhoads56]

Personally, I don't see the real need for compensated nuts for myself, my playing style doesn't require it, but I have never seen a need for a zero fret, I think they're dumb in pretty much every aspect LOL

←

I dont do them as standard, but there are a lot of people that can hear the difference. Personally, it doesnt bother me most of the time, but i KNOW its out. IVe never fitted one to any of my own guitars, although im thinking of adding one soon for a sample.

They work best in two piece bands, drum machine, keyboard, guitar. Keyboards are perfectly pitched, so a non compensated guitar can often stand out. Two piece bands are usually less "loud" and more rhythm based. Ive never had anyone get a compensated nut that DIDNT rant and rave about how good their guitar was now. So, obviously it makes a difference to them. In fact, the majority of people end up getting all their guitars done, after the first.

[psw]

Just a couple of questions perhaps to the side...since we have some experience here with Buzz Feitin system

Is the BF simply a compensated nut system and a different way of tuning based on fretted rather than open notes and harmonics to avoid the sharpness of some fretted strings? Is the earvana or other compensated nut going to then have the same effect then as the BF system or is Buzz onto something else?...I'm not sure of the hype that's being generated in this regard.

And my other question, I've got a zero fret on my acoustic...fine by me but I can see and here the difference a compensated nut would have everytime I play an open A major. my question though is this, how do zero frets fare compared to nuts on tremolo equiped guitars?

Not that I want to distract anyone from their lively discussions.....

pete