Official Luthiers Forum!

Thoughts?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

We got a call from the family that has taken over this product and has an effort, actively to promote it. It's been around a long time likely under a different distributor and when we took over our shop we had three of them in an old drawer. We still have three of them....

They wanted to send me samples and as usual I pushed back.... They wanted endorsees and of course I pushed back even harder. We are not a store and the very idea of selling a one size fits all you don't have to know what you are doing music store hack solution is not something that we are interested in.

Me... I'm not opinionated...

As for thoughts it's the kind of thing that someone comes up with who does not understand how a guitar, when properly set-up works.

When the nut slots are cut optimally and the nut is well made there is no need for anything like this. I can't remember if there are any mods to the end of the fret board but I think that there probably weren't. If this is the case, no invasive mods I don't see any harm in it but I also don't see any benefit what so ever. In fact with conventional methods and a conventional nut we can have more control over individual string nut slot depth over the zero fret.

In short - a solution looking for a problem.

I wanted to add that in my experience acoustic guitar fans are very loyal to tradition..... Reminds me of Fiddler On the Roof but I digress...

True there have been zero frets in history and on vintage instruments as well but this kind of a mod is likely the kind of thing that most traditionalists will turn up their nose at. Include me in that bunch too.

I'm with Hesh, it's a solution looking for a problem.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

+1 Heshtone. Also, the great thing about zero fret is that you level it with the other frets and ta-da; it's the exact right height. I don't know how you would just drop this in and be anywhere near the exact right height.

_________________
Pat

$30 to put lipstick on a pig.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

The Gibson nut has an actually advantage, in that it is capable of being precisely adjusted. Of course the detail of this adjustment is still confined by set radius, which means its potential will still be limited to beneath the standards of a well cut traditional nut, but it's not a bad idea. At the very least, it may allow people with less skill to get better results with lower risk, even if not quite as perfect as a skilled tech can cut a bone nut.

The Zero Glide though, it really brings nothing. Not only is it a solution in search of a problem, but it brings problems of its own and does little to solve those that were already there.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I do almost the same thing on most of my ukuleles by extending the fret board beyond the zero fret and slotting the end of the fret board as a string guide.

Bob

I don't see the point in it, especially for builders when you could just as easily install a zero fret. The only redeeming quality I can see in this is that the open strings will have the same tone as the fretted ones. But even that is suspect since it's not a fret well seated into the fretboard. I do like zero frets actually.

Okay, I'm gonna be the trouble maker here. Isn't the value of a zero fret that that an open string sounds similar to a fretted string?

Is there a tonal difference between a string that is bedded in bone and one whose end is defined by nickel/silver?

Steve

I question the assumption. The zero fret is a quick way to get close to the correct nut setup with out the messy step of filing slots. My guess is a zero fret's setup is much better than most setups.

To your question I think the tonal difference between open and fretted remains because of the fretting. No longer a straight path to the saddle when fretted.

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com

The tonal difference is open for debate. When asked by clients, I will generally avoid a firm answer because as in many cases like this, one's conclusions seem to match their expectations pretty consistently.

If I had to give a real answer, I would say that under the right conditions, yes, by all reason one could reasonably expect there to be some limited difference. I can't recall the last time I listened to a great album though, and thought "boy, the continuity of tone from that zero fret really makes this great", or "wow, the contrast of those open notes really opens up the tonal dimensions to a new level".

In other words, maybe it does, but even if so it's not nearly enough for me to care about in the least. I wouldn't let tonal differences (if there are any, which I take no firm side on) of this feature weigh too heavily on my choice of whether to use a zero fret vs traditional nut.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Okay Mr Smarty-Pants Collins (for those of you who don't know, I'm a huge fan of Dave's), nobody listens to a great album and says, "wow, that must have happened because of the great setups on their guitars". But you do those kinds of setups anyhow, cause it adds value and it's what you do.

But seriously, how is a well-cut nut better than a zero fret? Apart from making it possible to intonate the nut. What kind of problems does a zero fret cause?

Honestly curious.

Steve

There are a few issues common with zero frets.

The first is assumptions in setup. The traditional method dating back decades was that the zero fret should be a size larger than the following frets to allow reasonable clearance. As our methods of setup have evolved and improved, the flaws here become obvious. A jumbo zero fret paired with medium position frets leaves the "nut" way too high.

The modern assumption of leveling the frets, zero and on, all together is certainly better, but still leaves room for problems. The first potential problem is that it does not include the contingent factor of break over angle. Proper string clearance over level frets relies to some degree on finger pressure behind a fret providing sufficient downward angle of the string behind it to ensure a tiny bit of arc as the string bends up beyond the fret. Now if you have a guitar with a steep headstock angle, and the nut behind a zero fret cut deep enough that it allows sufficient angle approaching the zero fret from behind, then leveling the zero fret in plane with the rest can work. Try this on a Fender though, especially one with only one string tree, and your g and d strings are going to be prone to open buzz because there is not enough back angle to provide sufficient arc up beyond the zero fret.

Then there's wear. Anyone who plays much with a capo knows that capoed frets can wear a whole lot faster than those played normal. So if you treat a zero fret just like any other, it can wear down faster than the following frets, and start to buzz open.

When I work with zero frets, I pretty much always use stainless steel, and use a larger size fret than the following. Then there are different ways I will dress it, depending on the instrument.

If there's plenty of break over angle, I may dress it level with the rest. Then when crowning I will shape it different from standard, leaving a more shallow curve on the top so that the string bears down on a wider surface of the fret as it arcs over rather than contacting only a small tangent on a narrow peak. The hope here is that the broader surface will distribute the load better, and lessen premature wear.

On instruments with less than great breakover angle, I will cut the fret (again, stainless) with my nut files just as I would a normal nut. Then I may mark the grooves and dress the fret down to those points to smooth it out to look like a normal smooth fret, or more often I will simply leave it grooved, like a metal nut stuck in with a tang.

This does mean some of my methods add a tiny bit of compensation, and although I do take this in to consideration it is typically so small (.010"-.015) as to be a minor peripheral factor without much real impact.

Honestly though, I just find conventional nuts to be not only more durable and reliable, but easier to work with. Really just one of those things I don't see much good motivation to improve upon or change.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

And although it was just a good rib-jab, being the literalist that I am, I have to address the "boy, that guitar must have had a great setup" point.

You know my style, and that a huge priority of mine is not so much to make anything stand out, as it is to make the guitar almost disappear. All the finicky details of an obsessively perfect setup may shock a player as fantastic when they first pick it up, but the ultimate goal is when they get back to the studio or stage and refocus on the music, for the guitar to just melt in to their hands. I strive to eliminate every distraction, every hurdle or obstacle they may struggle with, and make the instrument disappear so that they don't have to think about the tool they are using.

The path is mind to music, and the guitar is just another tool like the mics, PA, amps, and monitors. When they're set right the player can forget they're even there, everything works together without distractions or struggles, and simply become tools to facilitate their presentation of their art unobstructed.

That's where the tone and impact of a musician's art come from. Things working right, being easy to set where they want it and forget as they play. The luthier contributes to the tone by allowing the artist to present their tone without obstacles or distraction. A guitar setup is as critical a factor in this tone as is the amp tech making sure tubes are biased proper, or a speaker cabinet doesn't rattle or howl at a particular note.

So although these setup details never get directly noticed by the end listener, they nonetheless have great potential to influence the music. The goal of the best setup is in essence to affect net contribution of zero to the artist's music. Anything but the best though, can quickly drive results in to the negative.

Given the lack of objection I have ever heard of tonal disparity open strings relative to fretted, I see this as a bit of an exercise in wind chasing. Good setups affect the tone by liberating the player from problems and distractions. The zero fret, well it doesn't do much good or bad to this effect, but I think that the conventional nut accomplishes the goals a bit more easily and reliably.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I'm not really looking forward to working on the Gibson contraption.
Even if they can manufacture them to provide a perfect string bottom radius, they will have to make an equally accurate fretboard radius to match. That's not something a lot of manufacturers have had success with.
By the time the mill marks are sanded out, the boards tend to be all over the place. Rounded over edges etc. That puts them right back where they started, hand adjusting string heights or sending them out the door goofy.
I'd be willing to bet the first one I see I'm going to want to even up the string heights. The Titainium I've worked is pretty brutal stuff too.
I don't want to be a kneejerk naysayer of new things but my confidence is pretty low they'll bring it all together for an improvement.
Just putting the adjustment screws on a more conventional nut makes more sense to me if adjustability is the goal. But I have a feeling finding your .050" Allen wrench and jacking up your nut a few times to play slide might quickly have you shopping for a better way.
Then again stranger products succeed all the time.

You know, Dave, you really need to start thinking things through in more detail

Thanks for the explanation.

Steve