Here we look at the nut: string spacing, nut material, nut height and neck relief, zero fret concepts, and measurements. Link to the Fingerboard Video tba.
"The nut is not really a big deal." Amen, brother! This nut business is a big canard with "thought leader" guitar players, who generally know enough to get themselves in trouble, and not much more than that. I've been saying the same thing since the brass era, myself. Glad to, at long last, have some backup.
Let's form a support group! I got tired of telling my repair customers that I didn't have either reindeer antler or Narwhal tusk as nut materials, what a strange chapter in guitar building. I blame it mostly on the guitar press "experts", who normally have nothing important to impart, but do need to publish monthly. Feh. As frank Zappa put it, "Shut up and play yer guitar."
Mr. Parker, I’ve commented before that I consider you one of the all-time master geniuses of instrument building. I’d love to be able to spend a few years apprenticing under you. That said, this is the first time that I’ve heard a heard an accomplished luthier say that nut material is irrelevant to tone. I believe what you say, but man, what a controversy that statement could lead to... Anyway, I’ll keep watching every video you create, as long as you want to keep doing so. Thank you..
Thanks Ken, I just happen to be making some nuts for my guitars recently, using a string spacing ruler that makes the spaces equidistant. I like it. Although for most of my life I've played all different kinds of spacing and just adapted. I really appreciate your teaching because you are one of the best!
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440So glad to hear you say that Maestro! I have said for years that "perfect is the eneny of good enough". I like your saying better.
Just a note about the True Temperament frets you mentioned(or squigly frets as you call them). I believe originally they just shaped frets to compensate for variations in pitch(change of tension from fretting etc.), and I think most people would agree that it achieves that goal. This would simply be a compensation system for equal temperamenet. However, the system they sell now is actually meant to be used with the strings tuned slightly differently, so it would actually be considered a different temperament system.
Darn nut height is critical, and it's chickenshit to set it high because you're clumsy or lazy. If the nut is not a precise part of the relief curve, it's the wrong height, in my opinion, for nearly all playing styles.
"Reasonable people can disagree". I like that a lot. I am surprised to hear you say you don't know of anybody using equal space between the strings at the nut. I use the Stew Mac fret slot ruler which is based on that idea. Spacing from the center of the strings would squeeze the larger diameter strings closer together. Obviously you sold a lot of guitars set up that way. I just find it interesting.
You could argue that while the larger strings might have the edges closer together, your fretting hand is usually pressing down the top of the string(center), not between. The plucking hand might prefer having the same distance between though. I think this particular issue is simply one of personal preference, I don't think you can truly argue that either is better.
Every Parker product had equally spaced string centers. we never has a single comment on this in over ten years and thousands of guitars. I don't see the argument for the other side of this, and I think it makes it harder to play the low strings near the nut, where this little difference is felt most. After all your finger touches the string, and it moves it to the fret where it touches down in the center of the string. The low strings aren't closer together, they're just a tiny bit larger, so there is a tiny bit less distance between them edge to edge. Have it your way, but really, how many great guitars has Stewart-MacDonald made? Just sayin'
No Doubt! Here's where sticky metals like brass and aluminum really stand out as terrible nut material choices. The nut material either needs to be lubricious in it's own composition, like the Graph Tech stuff we used at Parker Guitars, or, if you'd like a harder material, it should be something hard and crisp that can be lubricated with something greasy, or graphite powder, etc. Here's another reason not to use the 0 fret design.
Thanks. Always interesting. As a guitarplayer but defenitly a layman and happy amateur fixing things on my guitars I did make different nuts out of what I had. Wood, bone, plastic, brass. Couldnt hear a difference either. At least the time it took to change nuts my ears had forgotten the specifik sound. Tried the popular experiment to throw the nuts on a hard surface and noticed that the sound changede a lot according to how the nuts landed. A lot of hula-bula out there. Nice to know that a capaciaty like you; Ken, reached the same conclusion. No difference in sound changing the nut. Better play the guitar instead. But: thanks again for sharing your knowledge:)
Honestly, if i could afford to have any Luthier make me a guitar, it would be Ken. I'd never get tired of looking at the guitar and imagining the sheer amount of thought that had gone in to every last detail.
I have been looking forward to this episode. I’ve made many nuts for my various guitars. When it’s right, it makes a large improvement in the playability and intonation of the instrument. As you point out, there are many considerations and I should say I probably make about 5 nuts for every 3 that are satisfactory. My cases all have little plastic envelopes full of the failed, for some reason. In just a few minutes, you have confirmed a few suspicions of mine but much more important taught me so many things I needed to know. Thanks very much, Ken.
Thanks! Glad to be of service. Cutting a nut that is correct in every way is achieved only by much practice and diligence. Separates the men from the boys, big-time.
When it comes to relief, I've found that string gauge, scale length, and tuning (standard, dropped, etc) all affect string tension, and therefore string envelope size, and therefore relief required. In fact, for long scale lengths (>= 25.5"), light strings (8's), and non-dropped tunings, I've found i can get away with no relief whatsoever. But heavier stings or a Gibson scale length usually calls for a bit of relief. When it comes to nuts, I actually like zero frets. They are an elegant way to get perfect nut slot height. But as you say, a regular nut works fine too. I set nut slot depth at the same height as a zero fret. As a player, I prefer equal distance from the strings to the edges of the fretboard - not bass string closer to the edge than the treble string. I also prefer strings with equal spacing between them, not equidistant center-to-center - despite the fact that the latter is easier to implement. However, I tend to use Floyd Rose style locknuts on my builds, so I usually don't get a chance to implement a hand-cut non-offset equal-spacing nut. I like locknuts because they remove everything above the 1st fret from the tuning stability equation. I too tested many types of nut material. In general, metals seemed a bit brighter than plastics, which seemed a bit brighter than woods - but I didn't put them on a spectrum analyzer or anything like that - so no hard numbers to back up those impressions. The conclusion I reached was that zero frets minimize the tonal difference between open and fretted notes, and nut materials similar to the frets are tonally close enough. And like most things guitar - you have to A-B test it back-to-back to really notice a difference. I found little or no difference between steel, aluminum, and brass. The last build I did with a non-locking nut was the 12 string tailtuner with center-to-center spacing and equal spacing on the bass and treble sides. The nut was cut and shaped from a bone blank.
I like your comparison of string height at the nut with that of a zero fret arrangement. This will help me file nut slots in repair work as it requires no measurement other than comparing with the second and third frets...in my mind, anyway, this is easier. Thanks again for being, as you say, a thought leader.
Earvana Nuts are the ones doing the compensated nuts that I know off. But only Musicman is allowed to use them on production guitars. They are available for retrofitting or on Warmoth necks.
Confuse "em with choices! I doubt that many players could ID this blindfolded on a guitar, but the bass is another story. Anyway, it only counts at the first fret or 2, and it's small beer.
When playing professionally I place 3mm diameter wire strip up against the nut across the board with a dab of CA on the to hold on place on Fender style helped with the trem and intonation a type of zero fret ..back in the 80's .. Can you discuss the story of the first bass strings used by Fender...I understand gut core with metal winds over the pick up area is this correct Ken??
There was a place Ray’s Music that was in Whitnel, NC. It was an incredible store in a little town. I came really close to buying a Maccaferri when I was maybe 15 there. Gibson harp guitars , all kinds of incredible vintage instruments.
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440 yes Ray died probably in the early 2000’s. Between Ray’s, Mac’s and having AC Lail near by I was spoiled for being interested in lutherie.
Brass is overrated, but BELL BRASS - that's where it's at!... Just kidding... I find a lot of the nut materials interesting. Maybe we should discuss durability rather than tone when it comes to these little gems..? It does seem that seating and fixing the nut to the neck/fretboard is of high importance. Again, thanks for challenging us to think a bit harder about these things!
Good laugh here, thanks. I'll copy you on my last response to @totallyunmemorable..... Let's form a support group! I got tired of telling my repair customers that I didn't have either reindeer antler or Narwhal tusk as nut materials, what a strange chapter in guitar building. I blame it mostly on the guitar press "experts", who normally have nothing important to impart, but do need to publish monthly. Feh. As frank Zappa put it, "Shut up and play yer guitar."
The one potential problem though, is that the strings will often dig grooves into the zero fret. And if that fret is too far away from the nut, when you bend strings down toward the nut end, the string will come out of that groove and make pinging noises. A stainless steel zero fret might fix that problem.
They’re a foolproof way to easily get the right string height, and I’d certainly take one over an overly high conventional nut, which is the probable alternative on an inexpensive instrument. For a no-expense-spared guitar, though? Not a big fan of the extra friction.
This has been a vexing quirk of this system. I'm not saying that it can't be done well, but for a method that is thought to be easy-peasy and solve problems, it seems to bring a big bag of new troubles with it. Feh, just cut a good clean nut.
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440 well yes, I chose that word for the sake of brevity, trusting the reader to realise it's merely an indication of relative simplicity and should not be taken absolutely literally. I suppose that, in itself, was overly optimistic of me.
Cool, it's not right or wrong, as I see it, but just another compromise. Pick your poison. Not all compromises are lucky enough to get their own name! Builders have been moving the distance from the nut to the first fret around from the first day that there was a set of frets. Common practice for centuries, there is no "right" answer, just what works for you with your strings, setup, and style.
There is one aspect of zero fret that you should mention. Unless it's a really hard material (stainless) a zero fret gets groove from string bending (if you play rock and blues) losing it's proper heigh. You then need to change that fret with exactly the same fretwire.
True this, and it's one reason I never liked this 0 fret system. I should have mentioned that also the 0 fret means that you can't micro-adjust the string height to accomodate different playing styles, as the fret sets the height in a permanent way. Some builders use a higher fret for the 0 fret to build in a little extra height. I think this is unfortunate, as it raises the action for all the notes! Along with the wear concern that you cite, these issues erase any advantages that the system offers, except that it does remove one step, precision nut height adjustment, from the long list of tasks performed to get a guitar to play well. The 0 fret thing works, but in my opinion, it adds new problems that make it less desirable than just cutting the nut correctly.
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440Thank you for your answer. The more I learn about your design the more I'm impress with your inquiring mind. This RU-vid channel show me that you are also a great communicator and teacher. I really like your videos about tools. Maybe I misheard but I think that in one of your video you mention that Floyd Rose convince you that 6 tuner inline was better than 3+3. If that is true i'm really curious to know why. Did you already adress it in one of your video? Maybe I miss it.
Brass truly is the worst nut material I ever tried, it's just awful for this purpose, sticky and corrosive. I suppose Molybdenum would be worse, but let's not go there.
Bob Benedetto in his book 'Making an Archtop Guitar' recommends equal spacing between the strings ie from the string edge, not centre, and an equal space on the outside for the top and bottom strings. In passing, at ~2:11 you say '12 at the nut'. I assume this should be at the string mid-point ie the 12th fret?
Sorry to be so casual as to confuse, I meant 12" arc radius curve at the nut, as I was talking about how this curve changes over the length of the scale, 10" arc radius curve at the nut, 12" ARCurve at the mid-point, or 12th fret, and 14" ARCurve at the bridge. Make sense?
I have sworn to and have had my signed statement notarized that I will never comment on Bob Benedetto's instruments, methods, tools or his instructional materials. My pledge to you, Notarized. Over and out, last comment on this subject.
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440 Hi Ken, thanks for the reply. I really wasn't at all confused - you just mentioned 10" at the nut, then 12" at the nut whilst pointing at the mid-point, which sounded like a sort of verbal typo that I thought you might prefer to fix. Sorry if it came across as pedantry - a privilege of old age :¬)
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440 Thanks again. Can I get a copy of that? I'd love to add it to the case candy with my Manhattan Custom ;¬) Of course I only offered it because you did ask for examples of different approaches to string separation, and I think Benedetto is sufficiently illustrious to warrant a mention, particularly as his book is (I think) still the standard work on building an archtop. It would actually be remarkably interesting to hear/read a dialogue between you and him discussing your different approaches to the trade-offs inherent in archtop design - the Socratic dialogue is after all a part of the scientific method on which we all depend.
Hmm... I don't understand this PRS patent (by the way, I don't understand quite a lot of the patent madness in the USA at all). Since the position of the strings on the nut should be the same if a zero fret were used instead (not disputable I think), the edge of the nut should be moved by half the thickness of the tang (0.25-0.3 mm) towards the headstock. This is because if there was a zero fret there, its top, i.e. the string's support point, would be in the middle of the cut with a saw or a milling cutter, whatever is used for cutting fret slots. Since the string support point on the nut is on the closer to the bridge plane of the teeth of the cutting tool, the center of the tool guide, regardless of whether it is a milling cutter or a saw, should have been moved by half the tool cutting thickness towards the headstock. That is at least what I am doing. Luckily I am not infringing the PRS patent 😇 and my guitars play surprisingly in tune. Of course correct string height is a must) ;)
I agree that the nut landing surface against the end of the fingerboard should be 1/2 fret slot width longer than the center of the slot for a correctly placed zero fret. The PRS patent described an even larger shortening of this dimension, with the bass side of the nut being .030", or.76mm closer to the first fret, and the treble side .020", or ,5mm closer. At Parker Guitars we spec'd this length tolerance as + nothing, - .010" or .25mm. The PRS patent is long expired, and later on I believe they chose to adjust their lengths a little closer to maybe 015 - .020? or .5mm, or a bit less, thinking that they had overdone it a bit. As I mentioned, everyone has a right to defend their compromise, but I think a lot of this nonsense came about because builders were setting the nut too high under the influence of not understanding the crucial importance of not doing so, just one man's considered opinion. By the way, both PRS in the '80's and Fuzzy Bitin' in the 90's patented the exact same thing! Funny thing about US utility patents, often they are granted in error, and both of these qualify as indefensible, and so would never have been held up in court, due to the argument and its embodiment being 800 or so years old. Can't defend a patent if it ain't a new invention, just like the headless guitar and a lot of other stuff folks thought they invented. One of the fabulous things about being a builder is to take you place in the lineage of builders stretching back over 40,000 years, a big chunk of our time here on earth. It turns out that it's not easy to do anything truly novel, and also that reasonable folks can disagree.
Oh yes there is! The bridge material is quite important, just ask those who have junked their crappy Strat Vibrato blocks in favor of the original steel. Saddle material counts a lot.
@@kenparkerarchtoppery9440 Do I misremember that the Fly had an aluminum bridge? I have a Strat with a crap block. I bought some aluminum (a harder alloy - can't remember the number) with the intention of attempting to make my own block, but the older I get the less I seem to do - let's hope I live long enough. Aluminum - based on very little actual experience - seems quite a musical metal.
Funny how some things get under our skin, no? I think folks might benefit from spending more time on their phrasing, and maybe a bit less with the tuning analysis, but hey, that's me. Sometimes a wholesome compromise is pretty satisfying.
