Nuts

[stringkilla]

I was doing some drawings the other day and started to analyze, the details of a guitar nut. I started with the idea of keeping the center of each string slot and the center of each string on the same plane of reference. The required low action setting of .062" from fret one. It seems to measure out to a twisted neck design since following string gage diameters seems to set an angle from string number, 6 to 1. This being the case, and all the nuts I see on just about every guitar are the same depth uniformly across the fret board, setting each string height at a different center, how does this impact tuning and intonation?. I don't rightly know if I should be concerned about this , or , if I should just carry on and design a revolutionary new area of guitar theory. Any comments?

Edited November 30, 2008 by stringkilla

[Keegan]

I think action is usually measured from the bottom of the string, so that the distance you have to push each string to fret it is the same. If you measured from the center, they would get progressively higher and they would be more out of tune when fretted, since they'd be at a higher action and have to bend more to meet the fret. You'd have to invent some kind of compensation system, or angle the frets, and it would already just be more awkward to play.

[stringkilla]

Well, if we take that as true, then from the bottom of the string it is .062". The plane across the top of each string, essentially the parts we touch, are angled ever so slightly with the changing diameters of gage, as to affect the intonation of true pitch. How can one calculate the value to truly get pure pitch as am calling it. How could one compensate in nut design for this?.

Edited November 30, 2008 by stringkilla

[Keegan]

By changing the length of each string at the nut, i.e. moving the break point closer or further away, as seen with Earvana nuts.

Pure pitch is impossible on a guitar though, without having a separate set of frets for each string or something crazy like that. Guitars are eternally out of tune, but not enough to really bother anyone.

[bluesy]

By changing the length of each string at the nut, i.e. moving the break point closer or further away, as seen with Earvana nuts.

Pure pitch is impossible on a guitar though, without having a separate set of frets for each string or something crazy like that. Guitars are eternally out of tune, but not enough to really bother anyone.

It's lucky that most people don't require pitch to be absolutely perfect - otherwise a lot of (most?) singers would be out of business

On a guitar, depending on how you hold your hand when pressing down the strings, there's always a little bit of stretch to one side or another. No point in getting frets and nuts perfect, because the player isn't perfect anyway. Besides, many stringed instruments don't have frets, and the close pitch adjustment is set by ear. I do the same on a guitar. Try it, set a string out of tune - flatten it by a small amount, the play some scales and riffs across the neck. When you get to the detuned string, your fingers will want to bend the string to make it sound right.

[Geo]

It's lucky that most people don't require pitch to be absolutely perfect - otherwise a lot of (most?) singers would be out of business

So I'm not the only one who notices!

To add another thought... an equal tempered guitar will always be out of tune somewhere on the freboard. Try tuning your guitar to a perfect 2nd fret Emaj chord. Then play a D chord in the same position. The G string will be sharp and the B string a little sharp.

The guitar is a compromise in many, many ways.

[Keegan]

It's lucky that most people don't require pitch to be absolutely perfect - otherwise a lot of (most?) singers would be out of business

So I'm not the only one who notices!

To add another thought... an equal tempered guitar will always be out of tune somewhere on the freboard. Try tuning your guitar to a perfect 2nd fret Emaj chord. Then play a D chord in the same position. The G string will be sharp and the B string a little sharp.

The guitar is a compromise in many, many ways.

Because no one wants to carry a piano around everywhere.

[soapbarstrat]

Well, if we take that as true, then from the bottom of the string it is .062".

I must be misunderstanding what you're saying. You certainly can't mean there's a .062" gap between the bottom of a string and the top of the first fret. You must mean .062" is the gap between the bottom of the string and the top of the fret-board wood surface in front of the nut. Because if you mean over the first fret, that's is one badly set-up guitar.

[psw]

The evana and other strategies are interesitng, but as geo points out, it really only affects the open strings...yamaha took it a step further recently with the "wave fret" concept to fix the perfect Emaj~D chord thing...but always there are compromises.

One thing I am re-exploring is the step board concept as used on the Bond Electraglide guitar of your...this kind of thing has some interesting possibilities...I might start a thread again on it. A lot of difficulties as well, but materials and techniques have come a fair way in 25 years.

Basically, you have a sawtoothed "fretboard" without any frets at all. The strings break over the 'tooth' at every position instead of bending over a narrow fret and the wear is over a wider area (obviously refretting is an impossibility). It takes out some of the inconsistencies of touch between players, could offer a very low action...could also offer significant manufacturing benefits and if molded, could be a duplicate of it's model which could also incorporate such things as wave fretting. Obviously though...a lot of R&D required. My thinking was to take the concept even further with CF to make it super strong and stiff and integrating the truss rod mechanisim into it as well.

It is intriguing to me (plus it looks cool) as it is the only way I could see in eliminating radiusing, slotting and all the fretting plus neck reinforcement required in a traditional fretboard...probably a more interesting thing to me than trying to nut out the geometry of a twisted neck...but if you had a mind to you could try that too!

pete

[soapbarstrat]

One thing I am re-exploring is the step board concept as used on the Bond Electraglide guitar of your...this kind of thing has some interesting possibilities...I might start a thread again on it. A lot of difficulties as well, but materials and techniques have come a fair way in 25 years.

Probably so many reasons why that thing flopped that I don't have the patience to list them all. But I once saw Rick Turner say he was going to experiment with ceramic fret-boards that had frets (just bumps) already part of the board and the same material (ceramic frets that are not seperate pieces).

[WezV]

One thing I am re-exploring is the step board concept as used on the Bond Electraglide guitar of your...this kind of thing has some interesting possibilities...I might start a thread again on it. A lot of difficulties as well, but materials and techniques have come a fair way in 25 years.

Probably so many reasons why that thing flopped that I don't have the patience to list them all.

i think the main reason was cost... didnt they go bust. very expensive idea to get right

[Geo]

yamaha took it a step further recently with the "wave fret" concept to fix the perfect Emaj~D chord thing...but always there are compromises.

Now see, I think that's still referencing an equal-tempered system, in which say an F# is always the same frequency. The thing is, a perfectly in-tune D chord will have a different F# than say a perfectly in tune B chord (if I understand correctly).

There is no such thing as in tune. The question is, how versatile is your temperament (how many keys can it play in) and how well do you spread the out-of-tuneness around to hide it?

[psw]

The fretwave thing really only has a slight bend in the 2nd and third frets at the b string in order to have those open strings sound a little more in tune when fretted low...it is the result of the string stretching a little more over the nut, particularly the thinner strings and the b string most commonly...the third of an open a chord very commonly sounds out of tune compared to an open e with the b string open. So, not equal temperament...but a bit like earvana and buzz freitin attempt to correct.

...

The bond was an ambitious project with an ill concieved total concept and a bit of a dog of a guitar in many ways. There were so many things against it, most completely unrelated to the step-board concept. This was the real killer though because they could not accurately mold the board in the end and so made the early production boards cnc'ed from aluminium and anodising them...the effort and expense of doing this was horrendous.

But the guitar looked bad, had pointless electronics with LED displays for pickup selections and required a transformer to have them light up...the entire guitar was plastic and a very uninspiring shape.

The concept of the step board was very old though...the wear of the string is not so much on the point of a single fret and the string bent over it by the finger, but is pressed to the board behind the break over point of the saw tooth...very much like playing a normal fretboard though bending might hold some resistance.

Yes...expensive to experiment with, but it does replace a lot of work if it could be done right ameliorating some of that cost. As with the original though, there is a fair amount of potential idea killing pitfalls in it. I'd be looking at some kind of self lubricating typoe of epoxy mix to aid in the wear and bending issue and possible deeper or scoluping of the steps to aid in bending and feel...but, as I say an interesting rare innovtion in guitar history that rose and died perhaps being properly explored...certainly the weird history of this scottish monster is intriguing...

pete

sorry for dragging this off topic...Nuts...the subject is Nuts...ok!

[soapbarstrat]

i think the main reason was cost... didnt they go bust. very expensive idea to get right

Pete wrote : "the wear is over a wider area" in regard to the "saw tooth" peaks. Maybe what he says is partly true, but he's thinking of one side of the peak. On the other side of that peak, you have just the opposite. Say goodbye to the "retaining wall effect". Imagine the increase in wear, if you ground off half a side of a metal fret's crown.

[stringkilla]

Soapbar. if you check the factory setup specs for a Strat they specify .062 or 1/16th of an inch at the first position and 5/64ths of an inch at the twelfth. I guess I'll just do more research on this argument to find a good middle ground that's better than the current accepted norms for tunings. In the meantime Earvana offers the best and simplest solution.

[soapbarstrat]

I've had Fender specs on the cover of my main repair notebook for years and it's .020" at the first fret (which is still on the high side for me. WAY high for the high E )

Actually, we must not be talking about the exact same thing. I find it hard to believe anyone is comfortably fingering chords on a neck where the strings are sitting .060" above the first fret. If you're playing chords ok on that set-up, I would not want to get in a fight with you. You could crush my skull with your fretting hand quite easily.

Edited December 1, 2008 by soapbarstrat

[Setch]

1/16th at the first fret is like a limbo dancing rig!

The correct height at the nut is just high enough to clear the 1st fret if you press the string down between fret 2 & 3.

[psw]

i think the main reason was cost... didnt they go bust. very expensive idea to get right

Pete wrote : "the wear is over a wider area" in regard to the "saw tooth" peaks. Maybe what he says is partly true, but he's thinking of one side of the peak. On the other side of that peak, you have just the opposite. Say goodbye to the "retaining wall effect". Imagine the increase in wear, if you ground off half a side of a metal fret's crown.

I'm not entirely sure that is true. Certainly, if you ground off half a fret you are correct...but it would not have the support behind it and with the stepboard concpt you aren't bending over the fret to anything like the same degree...there is almost a fretless quality. In front of the tooth, it is not a shear drop but angled to give support to the "retaining wall" and is in many ways as if you were to take a conventional fret and fill in the reverse side all the way back to the bottom of the fret behind.

That is not to say it eliminates wear though...the bond concept addressed this by having it removable by being attached with screws hidden below the marker dots...of course, they were never going to survive long enough to have someone replace the fret board...the waiting period for the guitar itself was over a year from the launch and never survived much longer.

So many of the innovations were tacky and bad...like the digital readout and push button selectors (something no manufacturer has ever had success with) and it's all plastic hollow build (actually CF) and uninspiring over all design assured it's demise...

The bond guitar was always doomed (I kind of think the moog thing is looking similar now) but it is fetching very high prices now...probably because of it's rarity as much as anything. I see yamaha has dropped the fretwave thing too after a very short run.

I did play one briefly at a guitar show back in the eighties...the step board concept is an intriguing notion, possibly not a good one even...but intriguing all the same, especially from a manufacturing point of view...but it is too easy to associate the concept with the bad guitar it was featured on and the woes of the manufacurers that have an interesting political back story...

Anyway...since I brought it up...thought I should show a bit of a picture so that people know what we are talking about.

I may be very wrong in my analysis of the wear thing...yes there is still a break over point that is susceptible to wear...but the surface area is massive compared to the point of a fret on which the string rests....at least that's my thinking. As for the tuning stuff...it prohibits excessive bending over a fret and provides consistency in the touch...on the down side, there is a lot of potential friction and difficulty in getting under the string for bends and vibrato...

So, there amy be lots of reasons to avoid the concept and that make the traditional fret a lot better...

[stringkilla]

Soap, you have my sincerest apologies, I was mistaken. Some of my conclusions will be closer to correct now. I do beg pardo . Thanks

[soapbarstrat]

Hey Man, no need to apologize. I think you've suffered enough having to deal with such high action at the nut. Makes my fingers hurt just thinking about it. In case you didn't know, StewMac has some pretty good online articles on nut-work and in one of them, they list 'set-ups of the stars' and you can see the nut action specs on those, and there's a bit of a range there.

I think the lowest I ever got away with on a High E was .006" over the first fret. Some guitars will allow that. Just depends on the guitar and where the string energy wants to go and how fast that energy dies away (or something like that ?) I've also tried to go that low on other guitars that wouldn't allow it, so I aim more for at least .008" up to .011" over the 1st fret for the high E. I can't remember what the lowest for the low E is, that I ever got away with. But I often go for .014" to .018" for the low E. Of course another factor to consider is how the nut slots will wear down lower with use of the guitar, so that's a reason I try not to go as absolutely low as possible.

[westhemann]

Of course another factor to consider is how the nut slots will wear down lower with use of the guitar, so that's a reason I try not to go as absolutely low as possible.

I always think of this and I wonder how long it takes for the nut to wear until it buzzes....I would guess with graphite or plastic thin nuts it would take only a few months if it was set up too low.

I use trems on almost everything though,so the steel locking nut has great wear characteristics...

[psw]

One of the really cool things I found with my LSR nut I fitted to the tell is not only does it work great without the need for slotting at all...but it is also friction free and hard wearing...plus, it is height adjustable, mounting with screws and comes with a set of metal shims. It's kind of a shame someone doesn't come up with other designs for adjustable nuts.

Only down side really is that it wont fit in a standard slot...it requires a little bit of routing forward of the standard slot...this means once altered, you have to kind of stick to the LSR...oh, and it is an american strat neck specs...I fitted it to a squier and it was slightly wider, the string spacing was perfect though...worth the $40

If you don't have feeler gauges to work out these measurements...guitar strings make a good approximate tool...so a 10 under the first fret might be somewhere to aim for. Of course, to get the whole thing to work you have to look at the neck relief, action and intonation...and take into account the kinds of strings you use and how heavy a technique you tend to use.

[soapbarstrat]

If you don't have feeler gauges to work out these measurements...guitar strings make a good approximate tool...so a 10 under the first fret might be somewhere to aim for.

I've got real feeler gauges out the whazoo (do they make an ointment to help with that ?), but when it comes to checking under the string clearance at the 1st fret, short guitar string pieces are far superior to real gauges. Well, that's assuming you don't need a gauge under .008" or whatever (I guess some 8's pan out to be .007" and someone told me they heard of a .006" gauge string made, but I've never seen any proof of it)

Guitar string/nut slot, is like a slowly running machine to me. a little lube will really help keep it running long and well. I think a lot of crazy trem up-pulls will do the most damage fast. So, get all case-hardened metal for that stuff.

[ToneMonkey]

My thinking was to take the concept even further with CF to make it super strong and stiff and integrating the truss rod mechanisim into it as well.

I'm not too sure that CF would hold up to being a fret as well as a board. I would think that the strings would wear through it fairly fast.

[psw]

You are right...but I mention CF only as a part of the composite...usually the epoxy would provide the surface...i was thinking of a material that contains graphite to resist friction and wear with CF to provide the stiffness...exactly what mix and epoxy would be required is perhaps the biggest problem to the idea and a large part of the Bond" failure in terms of manufacturing...