Corrective Nuts And Zero Frets.

[Southpa]

Hmmm...this is getting weird. I see people arguing the same point with the same conclusions, just coming from different angles. Zero fret = nut ...period. Compensated nut is just a way to deal with the inherent imperfect intonation system in all our guitars. Its just setup to help correct the "sharpness" experienced when pressing notes at the first few frets.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jciguitars/Compensa...guitar_nut.html

Meanwhile the evil Mastermind sits back and gleefully rubs his hands together and laughs...MWAHAHAHAHA! Spend some time in the newsgroups and you can learn how to deal with the trolls. They are supposed to go elsewhere when you stop feeding them, but in this case the troll has really gotten a bellyfull.

Edited April 6, 2005 by Southpa

[Ragasguitars]

That is the most clear post on this topic Southpa. As far as zero frets being easier to do, yes it is easier and the same as a nut. Think about this, a company that makes inexpensive beginner guitars that makes 100 a day, takes about 15 minutes on average to properly slot a nut, multiplied by 100 is 25 hours. It would take 3 people a day to do 100 guitars a day at this rate. Put a zero fret, you have one person adding a nut for string spacing every minute or less. With a zero fret it takes one guy 2 hours tops to add the nut for string spacing. Say at 6 dollars an hour, this company would save close to $150 a day, thats about $30,000 a year. Thats why zero frets are seen on more cheaper guitars, it makes them able to sell them even cheaper and the quantity is more important. So why don't most campanies use zero frets, I don't know, it's a great way to save costs without changing anything. It's like trying to build a lot of guitars with only a chisel when a belt sander is available.

[GregP]

The only reason my posts get mucky is because people seem to want to read too much into what's being said.

I think the clearest one was mledbetter's <chuckle>

Moving on... Not only is a zero fret cheaper, but it's easier to get right than a crappy and poorly slotted plastic nut.

Greg

[onelastgoodbye]

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.

←

It's sort of based on the same principle. The buzz feiten system moves the nut back (closer to bridge) by about 2 % of the distance to the first fret (depending on how high the action is). then the strings are tuned to different offsets, like say a-string at 440,2 Hz instead of 440. Intonation at the bridge is also adjusted (offsets at twelfth fret). So instead of giving each string a different scale length, each string is tuned and intonated slightly different. Problem is you need a special (more accurate) tuner.

anyway you can read it all in the patents

Tim

[GregP]

A Peterson strobe tuner with Buzz Feitin presets is recommended for getting full use out of the BF system. As long as your tuner can give you a digital readout of the current dominant frequency, though, you can follow his formula "manually".

Greg

[lovekraft]

The buzz feiten system moves the nut back (closer to bridge)

PRS and a lot of other fine guitar makers have been doing that for years - in fact, it's documented in 19th century luthiery literature. Does anybody besides me see the paradox of a system that improves tuning accuracy by deliberately detuning the open string?

[thedoctor]

I have been a good boy up till now and stayed out of this thread but the time has come for me to display my COMPLETE and TOTAL DOMINANCE in the arena of IGNORANCE! BWAAHAAHAAHAA! Gee, Lovecraft, you are absolutely right; a little total power in the morning goes a long way! I have always thought that fret-placement was never correct unless the size or hieght of the frets were considered first. A purposely anti-tuned open string can be just one of the ideas that came out of this oversight. HOW MANY TIMES do I have to add IMHO to avoid getting reamed? The stretching of the string to make it to the fretboard is as annoying to me as the slight sharping of the string when it is hit very hard, only probly worse cause it seems to always be there. Except, of course, when played by a really decent player who knows his guitar intimately.

[javacody]

OK first of all, this thread has been growing sillier since page 1. Prime example of written words not coming across as the author may have meant them (and it would be obvious if your were speaking to them in person). No offense to anyone involved, but I think it may be time to let er rest.

I think we can all agree that compensated nuts rock and zero frets suck. LOL.

[marksound]

OK first of all, this thread has been growing sillier since page 1. Prime example of written words not coming across as the author may have meant them (and it would be obvious if your were speaking to them in person). No offense to anyone involved, but I think it may be time to let er rest.

I think we can all agree that compensated nuts rock and zero frets suck. LOL.

←

Maybe that's why it's called a zero fret.

[GregP]

Harumph. I don't agree.

And that's a whole bunch of impressionable young people that you've snobbed into thinking that they need a nut or they'll be ridiculed by the elite here.

I'm only half serious... I DO think it's elitist and I do think that zero frets are a fantastic idea on many different levels. But, I'm not particularly bothered, as I will continue to think it's a good option regardless of mockery.

I've been mocked before...

I will be mocked again...

And I will still use a zero fret.

[mledbetter]

Why hasn't someone designed a nut with 6 individual mini saddles.. Maybe a little titanium number with bone inserts for the strings to ride on. Making one to fit a fender would be a challenge but a gibson style nut is huge.. that could easily be machined. How cool would that be. Leaving the bone inserts allows the luthier to still be in control of slotting and height adjustment.. Crazy??

You zero fret folks dont' have to answer

[lovekraft]

...Why hasn't someone designed a nut with 6 individual mini saddles...

Do a Google for "Microfrets', and ignore the current license holders - they actually offered the MicroNut® in the early 70s, along with other innovations like wireless transmitters and calibrated vibrato. They were about 20 years ahead of their times, and had crashed and burned by 1974 or so.

[bassman]

Yes I like zero frets, and will still answer, but the really make a lot of sense for head less instruments where tthe string spacing is aleady set by the "headstock end" string retainer.

Warwick use to have their nuts adjustable for the individual string heights. These days their nuts are adjustable at only two points for string height. I have considered using something like that for some time.

Edited April 7, 2005 by bassman

[Daniel Sorbera]

So explain to me why moving the nut is better than moving the bridge farther away? I have a normal nut and normal frets And I just intonate my bridge so It's plays in tune. And all my guitars play perfectly in tune (at least as auccrate as my tuner will get). So whats the advantage of moving the nut closer? Or is turning the intonation screw on your bridge too hard so you gotta go move the nut?

And I have used guitars with zero frets and thers nothing srong with them except one BIG thing. there BUTT ugly

I hate them so I wont use them. If you want to use them *cough* greg *cough* Than go ahead. But I'm not gonna and you cant make me

O and why cant you just place your nut a little bit closer to the bridge?

Edited April 7, 2005 by Godin SD

[mledbetter]

So explain to me why moving the nut is better than moving the bridge farther away?  I have a normal nut and normal frets    And I just intonate my bridge so It's plays in tune.  And all my guitars play perfectly in tune (at least as auccrate as my tuner will get). 

←

Well...

As I said before. I don't use a compensated nut and i'm ok with how my guitar sounds. I can however detect some intonation problems if I listen verry carefully. Play a standard A chord. Those are among the worse. You should hear some sharpness on your 3rd string. You'll hear some sharpness in there. Even if your guitar is PERFECTLY in tune and perfectly intonated.. It's just the nature of the fretted instrument. It really bothers some people, some people don't notice it, some people don't care. The problem is there though if you look for it.

Your frets don't move, so compensating on the saddle end only solves half the problem. You get to a point where you can't correct anymore and that's when you turn to the compensated nut.

Do a Google for "Microfrets', and ignore the current license holders - they actually offered the MicroNut® in the early 70s, along with other innovations like wireless transmitters and calibrated vibrato. They were about 20 years ahead of their times, and had crashed and burned by 1974 or so.

←

Wow.. that's interesting. What a shame. I bet it was the name.. If it was called BigNuts it might have sold more

[GregP]

Godin,

Whether I debate with them or not, it's already been written AT LENGTH how a compensated nut works, so I doubt you'll find anyone with the patience to do it again.

As for the ugliness-- well, you go ahead and do whatever you need to do to make sure your guitar 'looks good', while I cheerily do whatever it takes to make my guitar play well. There's a primary difference between your goals and mine, I would say.

I'd never in a million years try to MAKE anyone do anything. Well, except listen to my songs. Occasionally I make people do that.

Greg

[Southpa]

Well, one thing that can't be ignored. Despite there being absolutely nothing wrong with using a zero fret, they have been stereotyped as being a feature found on "cheap-ass", mass produced, stamped out guitars.

A compensated nut only works in the same capacity as a compensated bridge (on acoustics) when plucking open strings. Once you fret a note the compensation feature of the nut does nothing.

Edited April 7, 2005 by Southpa

[GregP]

I agree that it's a rep, but I think reputation is unimportant when compared to design. Steinberger, for example, uses zero fret (and that's including their current Synapse models). And Steinberger aren't known as 'cheap', AND they ARE known as being visionary and concerned with pushing the envelope. <shrug> Obviously Ned and his crew weren't concerned that some factory guitars have used zero fret before.

Also, reputation or no reputation, it's not a 'fact' that a zero fret is cheaper to install. If anything, it's easier and cheaper to slide a crappy plastic nut into place than to properly install a fret, so a reputation isn't always based on fact. Sometimes it can be based on simple proliferation of a misconception. I mean, people with misinformation are as likely to pass it along as people with the truth. This forum has demonstrated that more than once.

When you consider THAT point of view, it actually explains why so many factory guitars DO use nuts instead of a zero fret. Because at the end of the day, the crappy nut is cheaper and easier to install after all. Come to think of it, I don't want a nut anymore, because it'll make my guitar look cheap.

Greg

[mledbetter]

I've heard this several times here and I don't understand it.. Zero frets are not cheaper to produce.. In fact i've alway associated them wither with older names.. vintage instruments.. or high end more specialized names liek Vigier.. I've never thought of them as a production shortcut. A preslotted OEM nut is cheaper anyday than seating another fret.

We may get this thread to 10 pages yet!!

ok.. i promose not to post anything else here. I'll just go duck for cover incase this thing explodes again.. I jsut thought an adjustable nut would be neat and apparently some dude in the 60s thought so as well.

[GregP]

It's simply, and I'm guilty of it, too--

We hear somebody who 'seems' to know what they're talking about say it, and we take it as truth. So, somebody says with a tone of authority, "zero frets were just a cheap way for factories to install nuts." Then, even if they've never actually encountered this information themselves, another person will echo that information. Many of us are very quick to take information as a given, especially if it coincides with our own viewpoint.

So, if a person is already inclined to think that zero frets look 'cheap', and then someone with only the slightest air of authority 'confirms' their suspicion, that's all the information they need.

We're all guilty of doing it at times, but it's dangerous when an individual gives up their ability to be a free and critical thinker. In this very thread, I've done it a few times just because it seemed easier than arguing. By the same virtue, it's easier to jump on somebody's bandwagon than (God forbid) do some thinking of your own.

Greg

[Daniel Sorbera]

My point was that I hadent seen the bridge intonation mentioned anywhere in this thred so I was wondering why you couldent just do it at the bridge. But now doing more critical reading I anweserd my own question...

[lovekraft]

You guys are missing the point - it may take you longer to install a zero fret than a cheap nut, but in a production environment, adding one more fret at the fretting station is definitely faster and cheaper than adding another station to install a cheap plastic pre-slotted nut. Time is money, and it's always faster and more efficient to replicate an existing operation than to implement a new one. Don't take my word for it, ask a production engineer - I did. We're not completely profit-driven, so we don't think that way, but you can bet guitar factories do.

...it's dangerous when an individual gives up their ability to be a free and critical thinker...

It's also much too easy to accuse anyone who disagrees with one's personal point of view of being close-minded. Truth is often counter-intuitive.

[mledbetter]

You guys are missing the point - it may take you longer to install a zero fret than a cheap nut, but in a production environment, adding one more fret at the fretting station is definitely faster and cheaper than adding another station to install a cheap plastic pre-slotted nut. Time is money, and it's always faster and more efficient to replicate an existing operation than to implement a new one. Don't take my word for it, ask a production engineer - I did. We're not completely profit-driven, so we don't think that way, but you can bet guitar factories do.

...it's dangerous when an individual gives up their ability to be a free and critical thinker...

It's also much too easy to accuse anyone who disagrees with one's personal point of view of being close-minded. Truth is often counter-intuitive.

←

dammit.. i said i wouldn't post again..

in a production environment the CNC cuts the nut slot and it faster for an untrained worker to squirt some glue and slap a nut in there than to seat another fret.. That's just what seems logical to me. Every zero fret instrument i have seen has a nut still.. you have to have a string guide. so how is that saving a step? You add a 23rd fret and then STILL have to add a cheap plastic nut behind the zero fret.

I think it's safe to bet that the 80-90% of the guitars on the market.. the imports, the beginner models, etc.. would all have zero frets if it truly was cheaper. What does a beginner care if his 200 dollar guitar has a zero fret or not.. It's not just a matter of market preference. Cost savings drive production evolution more than anything.

[GregP]

You guys are missing the point - it may take you longer to install a zero fret than a cheap nut, but in a production environment, adding one more fret at the fretting station is definitely faster and cheaper than adding another station to install a cheap plastic pre-slotted nut. Time is money, and it's always faster and more efficient to replicate an existing operation than to implement a new one. Don't take my word for it, ask a production engineer - I did. We're not completely profit-driven, so we don't think that way, but you can bet guitar factories do.

...it's dangerous when an individual gives up their ability to be a free and critical thinker...

It's also much too easy to accuse anyone who disagrees with one's personal point of view of being close-minded. Truth is often counter-intuitive.

←

Touchy, touchy. I never said that you're closed-minded, although YOU seem to be dismissing almost anything anyone says that's counter to YOUR opinion of having "missed the point". I am far too good a reader and far too critical a thinker to "miss your point," and if my point of view doesn't happen to coincide with yours, that doesn't mean that I missed anything, but rather than my opinion doesn't happen to coincide with yours.

Your argument is flawed. It's based on the fact that it's easier to use an existing method than create a new one. Fine. But why did the factories choose to implement the nut rather than nut + zero fret in the first place? Because it's cheaper and easier to install ONE pre-cut nut than it is to install one pre-cut nut (a zero fret requires a nut, too) AND a fret.

As for your engineer that you talked to... that's an ad populem argument, and therefore a fallacy. Once upon a time I could have talked to a doctor, who was a supposed expert in medecine, and he would have told me that my illness is caused by an imbalance in the four humours. Engineers have also made plenty of poor design choices in the past. An illustration:

A community in a drought-inflicted country was offered aid in order to sustain their populace. This included food rations. The problem was that the rations were prone to spoil before they got used because of improper storage. So, in order to make sure the aid was properly developed, a team of engineers was sent in. They designed a mass refrigeration unit that could store all of the reserves and keep them cool. The problem was that the electricity infrastructure a) cost money; but more importantly was unreliable and would often go down for weeks at a time.

Can't run a refrigerator without power. Also, the structure was above ground and constructed largely of aluminum sheeting, which will conduct heat. So not only did the super-fridge need to keep things cool, but it had to use energy to fight the sun's natural heating abilities as well.

This is a whole TEAM of engineers.

So, an engineer more deserving of the name asked the locals how THEY kept their food stored. As it turns out, they burrow little nooks into the earth, where the earth itself keeps items sheltered and relatively cool. Next step was to create a super-sized version of the community's existing and proven technology.

-----

Back to the points:

a ) it doesn't matter what your engineer said except that it serves as an example of one person who's on your side. That's fair enough, and it CAN be introduced as part of a debate, but I could talk to a different engineer and he would agree that a nut is easier to install than a nut and a fret. So then we'd have 2 engineers with 2 different points of view, and it wouldn't bring the argument any closer to a resolution.

b ) engineering is ABOUT finding the simplest solution. Surely an engineer somewhere along the way realized that the point above ("a") was the simplest solution. I mean, in a way, by appealing to the engineering of the situation as an way to prove a point, you're kind of proving MY point, which is that surely a regular nut is cheaper and easier to install.

All I ask is that instead of just arguing, consider all points of view first. Speak to the points made instead of introducing red herrings. You can't just pick the arguments that you feel like addressing and ignore the rest.

[mledbetter]

well in fairness.. all the engineer agreet to was that "it's simple to replicate an existing function rather than create a new one" I can agree to that.. but that isn't taking into account that zero frets require a nut. it's not a tradeoff.. so the engineer answered a question correctly, but didn't have the full information to work from.

But it's an engineers job to focus on the details.. so missing the forest for the trees is kind of part of the job description