Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
Re: Fret zero? Why? Why not?
I wonder if you don't get a better connection between string
and neck, ie better sustain, with a nut. A zero fret is like
a nut with very little downward turn to the strings on the
tuner side, so very little string pressure.
Paul P
Paul P wrote:
> I wonder if you don't get a better connection between string
> and neck, ie better sustain, with a nut. A zero fret is like
> a nut with very little downward turn to the strings on the
> tuner side, so very little string pressure.
Good job! Think of the physics. I don't care for zero frets.
But I don't have any test data to use to compare anything.
I owned one Epiphone with a zero fret one time.
I sense that I want all of the compression
stress carried by ONE fulcrum (the nut)
not TWO (nut + zero fret).
Pretty good argument on the other side
will say "but when you fret, the nut
is out of the picture".
I'm just not sure if it is or isn't.
But I like the idea of the nut being a SINGLE fulcrum,
not allowing any string movement sideways.
The nut, when cut by a luthier, has a slot shaped like
the string, including a rounded bottom and an appropriate
ramp, arc supporting the string as it changes direction
toward the tuners. In comparison, a fret has a rounded
wedge pointing UP. The connection between nut slot and
fingerboard seems to me, as Paul suggests, to be
a better "connection".
And I just really don't see an advantage to having
a fret at the zero position instead of a nut. Nuts
are always going to be easier to build and adjust
than frets.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
> I wonder if you don't get a better connection between string
> and neck, ie better sustain, with a nut. A zero fret is like
> a nut with very little downward turn to the strings on the
> tuner side, so very little string pressure.
Good job! Think of the physics. I don't care for zero frets.
But I don't have any test data to use to compare anything.
I owned one Epiphone with a zero fret one time.
I sense that I want all of the compression
stress carried by ONE fulcrum (the nut)
not TWO (nut + zero fret).
Pretty good argument on the other side
will say "but when you fret, the nut
is out of the picture".
I'm just not sure if it is or isn't.
But I like the idea of the nut being a SINGLE fulcrum,
not allowing any string movement sideways.
The nut, when cut by a luthier, has a slot shaped like
the string, including a rounded bottom and an appropriate
ramp, arc supporting the string as it changes direction
toward the tuners. In comparison, a fret has a rounded
wedge pointing UP. The connection between nut slot and
fingerboard seems to me, as Paul suggests, to be
a better "connection".
And I just really don't see an advantage to having
a fret at the zero position instead of a nut. Nuts
are always going to be easier to build and adjust
than frets.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
On May 12, 12:35 am, "Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:
> And I just really don't see an advantage to having
> a fret at the zero position instead of a nut. Nuts
> are always going to be easier to build and adjust
> than frets.
>
> Lumpy
>
Absolutely wrong. I can replace a zero fret, match the edge bevel,
level to the correct height and polish in about 15 minutes. It takes
*way* longer than that to cut/shape/slot/polish a bone nut from a
blank. Strat style "slot" nuts aren't quite so much a hassle, but end
of the fretboard nuts take some time to do right.
The main disadvantage of a zero fret is they tend to wear alot quicker
than a standard nut. That and you can't go to a music store and get a
cheap pre slotted plastic nut to glue in to get you by for a while.
The main advantage of a zero fret is if they're done right, you're
guaranteed proper action at the first fret....until they get worn.
> And I just really don't see an advantage to having
> a fret at the zero position instead of a nut. Nuts
> are always going to be easier to build and adjust
> than frets.
>
> Lumpy
>
Absolutely wrong. I can replace a zero fret, match the edge bevel,
level to the correct height and polish in about 15 minutes. It takes
*way* longer than that to cut/shape/slot/polish a bone nut from a
blank. Strat style "slot" nuts aren't quite so much a hassle, but end
of the fretboard nuts take some time to do right.
The main disadvantage of a zero fret is they tend to wear alot quicker
than a standard nut. That and you can't go to a music store and get a
cheap pre slotted plastic nut to glue in to get you by for a while.
The main advantage of a zero fret is if they're done right, you're
guaranteed proper action at the first fret....until they get worn.
boardjunkie wrote:
> ... I can replace a zero fret, match the edge bevel,
> level to the correct height and polish in about 15 minutes...
I doubt it. But if you can, bravo for you.
I still don't like zero frets.
> The main advantage of a zero fret
> is if they're done right, you're
> guaranteed proper action at the
> first fret....until they get worn.
No difference in the least with a nut.
If done right (by a luthier) you're
guaranteed proper action at the first fret.
Nut or zero fret, you still have to measure
and remove material to achieve the desired
tolerance.
I think all you're doing with a zero fret
is transferring the need for close tolerance
to a different point (the Ø fret) instead of
at the nut.
Adding an extra part to anything without
demonstrable benefit is not good engineering.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
> ... I can replace a zero fret, match the edge bevel,
> level to the correct height and polish in about 15 minutes...
I doubt it. But if you can, bravo for you.
I still don't like zero frets.
> The main advantage of a zero fret
> is if they're done right, you're
> guaranteed proper action at the
> first fret....until they get worn.
No difference in the least with a nut.
If done right (by a luthier) you're
guaranteed proper action at the first fret.
Nut or zero fret, you still have to measure
and remove material to achieve the desired
tolerance.
I think all you're doing with a zero fret
is transferring the need for close tolerance
to a different point (the Ø fret) instead of
at the nut.
Adding an extra part to anything without
demonstrable benefit is not good engineering.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
"Lumpy" <lumpy@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:68ri5oF2ue08kU1@mid.individual.net...
> boardjunkie wrote:
>> ... I can replace a zero fret, match the edge bevel,
>> level to the correct height and polish in about 15 minutes...
>
> I doubt it. But if you can, bravo for you.
> I still don't like zero frets.
>
>
>> The main advantage of a zero fret
>> is if they're done right, you're
>> guaranteed proper action at the
>> first fret....until they get worn.
>
> No difference in the least with a nut.
> If done right (by a luthier) you're
> guaranteed proper action at the first fret.
>
> Nut or zero fret, you still have to measure
> and remove material to achieve the desired
> tolerance.
>
> I think all you're doing with a zero fret
> is transferring the need for close tolerance
> to a different point (the Ø fret) instead of
> at the nut.
>
> Adding an extra part to anything without
> demonstrable benefit is not good engineering.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> www.LumpyMusic.com
>
>
>
Just to diverge from the topic,can any of you guy's with keen ears discern
different tones by plucking a string in the conventional manner and pulling
outward on the string to produce the same note?
The reason i ask is because of a particular innovation in grand pianos
whereby the string is terminated by a horizontal pin rather than a verticle
pin which is claimed to produce a better tone/sustain due to being
terminated in the same plane as the hammer,any thoughts?
Next: Why is the tritone considered the most dissonant interval?
Previous: What is an "effects patch loop"?
