Is it worth the effort to replace the plastic nut with a bone nut on my Epi Dot?

[Ward]

Right, but as soon as you fret a string, the nut compensation is gone, and all you have it the bridge compensation. So why not use just the bridge compensation? I can accept that the nut might help with open strings, but not notes on all the frets.

I remember that discussion at MIMF, and it didn't make sense to me then either. What I said at the time was, make a guitar with a compensated nut. Check the tuning. Now place a capo at the third fret and remove the nut. Alternately you can replace it with a non compensated nut.

So assuming the height of the strings did not change, they will still be in tune. Now test the intonation on the guitar.

So what is the nut doing to help the tuning for fretted notes? Not much as far as I can see.

Ok, I'm new here but I have some exp with tuning issues. This subject is very close to my heart.
Using a compensated nut, right, first up, what is it doing?
It's moving the nut closer to the 1st fret, different degrees per string. So in effect, this is actually moving ALL the frets closer to where the stock nut was, right? With me so far? I'll say it again, all the frets have now moved closer to the nut by the degree of compensation that the nut is imparting on each string.
Now, after the strings are tuned to pitch, the relationship between the string/s and fret/s has changed. So, a fretted note's pitch is altered, flattened of course, every note on the neck is now flattened by the degree of nut compensation on each individual string. I can't explain it any simpler than that. You can see now that the compensated nut is doing a LOT, everything has changed, and for the better I might add.
I make my own guitars and a few for friends over the years, have been screwing around with tuning problems for over 20years. Made my first strat in 82.
What I do is simply put the nut 2.5mm closer to the first fret, this is easy to do and doesn't add cost for some fancy nut, you just use the same nut that you would normally but move it 2.5mil closer to the first fret.
I prefer brass nuts myself but that's another story.
If you still can't see how a compensated nut can have anything to do with fretted notes well you should just see/listen to how much better a guitar sounds with the nut moved 2.5 mil closer to the first fret. Have a listen to the E A G D C open chords, all of em actually, maj or min or 7th chords dim, aug, listen to the improvement, you'll be amazed, trust me, you have to hear it before you can comment.
I hope my explaination makes this clear now, as I said, I've been screwing with tuning issues for over 20 years, moving the nut, whether compensated or not, works. My gripe with tuning has always been in regards to open chords as this is where the problem is the greatest. Moving the nut does wonders here, as for the rest of the board, I am just happy that I can't hear the moved/comped nut causing problems further up but if you look at it now, you should see plainly that by moving the nut, you are effectively moving ALL the frets down closer to the nut. The length between the nut and the frets has changed all over. Cheers.

[Mike Sulzer]

Right, but as soon as you fret a string, the nut compensation is gone, and all you have it the bridge compensation.

But not the same bridge compensation. Think of doing this, starting with a non-compensated nut with the guitar set up properly (procedure A):

1. For a particular string, move the nut closer to the first fret.
2. Retune the string.

All fretted notes now have different frequencies because the fretted length has changed relative to the open length for all. In doing this you have improved the lower notes (if you did not go to far) but made the higher notes worse.

Now do this (procedure B):

1. Move the bridge to improve the higher notes.
2. Retune the string.

Iterate procedures A and B until you achieve the best compromise. This is better than bridge compensation alone.

Do this for each string. The amount of nut and bridge compensation is in general different for each string, as one would expect.

On the Rick Turner thing: How is a zero fret any better than a nut cut to the same height?

[David Schwab]

1. For a particular string, move the nut closer to the first fret.
2. Retune the string.

All fretted notes now have different frequencies because the fretted length has changed relative to the open length for all. In doing this you have improved the lower notes (if you did not go to far) but made the higher notes worse.

OK.. I see what's going on now. You have changed the open pitch by a very small amount. As soon as you fret the string you have the same distance from the fret to the bridge. But now all the notes are slightly flatter. So by allowing the notes to get sharp as you ascend the neck, they will be in tune. Maybe. Depends on the amount of relief you use and the action. It's like stretch tuning on pianos.

But no one moves the bridge with the Feiten system. The offsets are well within the amount of movement available on a standard bridge. Then there is the Earvanna nut, which I don't think includes the tuning offsets as the Feiten system.

But do you hear a problem with notes being sharp on the first few frets? I sure don't. If they are, it's from the string being stiffer down there.

Also you mentioned the discussion on classical guitars. Nylon strings are very different from steel strings, and you might notice that traditionally classical guitars had no compensation at the bridge whatsoever.

On the Rick Turner thing: How is a zero fret any better than a nut cut to the same height?

I don't think he was saying a zero fret is better than a properly cut nut, he was saying a zero nullifies the tuning problem that the compensated nut is supposed to fix. And Feiten agreed with him. Also if you read Feiten's patent, it doesn't even talk about the nut. It talks about the compensation at the bridge. I don't know if he did that to keep the amount the nut is moved a secret, or what.

Tuner doesn't even uses zero frets, but he did design the height adjustable nut on the Alembics.

Mike Tobias does use zero frets however, and he feels they are better. He also uses the Feiten system. He says he moves the zero fret slightly closer to the first fret, and most of the system is from the unique tuning at the bridge.

Zero frets eliminate any possible miscutting of the nut. So the open strings are just like a fretted note. It's the perfect height because it's leveled with the rest of the frets.

[Mike Sulzer]

OK.. I see what's going on now. You have changed the open pitch by a very small amount. As soon as you fret the string you have the same distance from the fret to the bridge. But now all the notes are slightly flatter. So by allowing the notes to get sharp as you ascend the neck, they will be in tune. Maybe. Depends on the amount of relief you use and the action. It's like stretch tuning on pianos.

If you move the nut closer to the first fret, and retune to the same open note, the first fretted note will be flatter than if you had not done this. This compensates, presumably for string stretching, as you said below.

But no one moves the bridge with the Feiten system. The offsets are well within the amount of movement available on a standard bridge. Then there is the Earvanna nut, which I don't think includes the tuning offsets as the Feiten system.

By "move the bridge", I mean adjust it. The amount of motion is very small.

But do you hear a problem with notes being sharp on the first few frets? I sure don't. If they are, it's from the string being stiffer down there.

I can measure it with a piano tuner, and I can measure an improvement with the compensated bridge. It is a small effect, and I am not one of those with good enough pitch to hear it. But there are those who can.

Also you mentioned the discussion on classical guitars. Nylon strings are very different from steel strings, and you might notice that traditionally classical guitars had no compensation at the bridge whatsoever.

The article I referred to was for classical guitar. Tradition and making a guitar that will play in tune with other instruments are two different things. The degree of compensation will certainly be different with different string materials.

Mike Tobias does use zero frets however, and he feels they are better. He also uses the Feiten system. He says he moves the zero fret slightly closer to the first fret, and most of the system is from the unique tuning at the bridge.

So he is using a compensated "nut", actually a zero fret, that has the same degree of compensation for all strings. This offers some improvement over no "nut" compensation.

Zero frets eliminate any possible miscutting of the nut. So the open strings are just like a fretted note. It's the perfect height because it's leveled with the rest of the frets.

I agree.

[David Schwab]

If you move the nut closer to the first fret, and retune to the same open note, the first fretted note will be flatter than if you had not done this. This compensates, presumably for string stretching, as you said below.

Well all the notes will be flat, since in essence you shifted the entire fingerboard closer to the nut, but the usual string stretching that makes notes sharp as you go up the fingerboard would presumably fix this.

By "move the bridge", I mean adjust it. The amount of motion is very small.

Got it.

I can measure it with a piano tuner, and I can measure an improvement with the compensated bridge. It is a small effect, and I am not one of those with good enough pitch to hear it. But there are those who can.

Well I'm open to trying it at some point, but I haven't heard a problem with tuning yet. I think.

The article I referred to was for classical guitar. Tradition and making a guitar that will play in tune with other instruments are two different things. The degree of compensation will certainly be different with different string materials.

That's true.

So he is using a compensated "nut", actually a zero fret, that has the same degree of compensation for all strings. This offers some improvement over no "nut" compensation.

He uses a zero fret which is moved closer to the first fret. So it's the same as the Feiten system (which he licenses), but he replaced the nut with the zero fret.

The Earvanna nut has individual compensation for each string. That's also the easiest to try, since it's a retrofit nut, and doesn't require the rather steep licensing.

Well thanks for making me take another look at this and finally understanding what the basis is behind it.

[Dave Kerr]

My son prefers high action and strings up 12's on his Tele. I've used Stephen Delft's instructions to good effect on his guitar.

[StarryNight]

I recently replaced a plastic nut on a SG. The reason was the low strings were sounding very dead, with no sustain whatsoever. The bone nut made a noticeable difference. I'm not sure if it was the bone, the fitting or the fact that i raised the nut height slightly but the difference was pretty big (and the client was happy).

[NPB_EST.1979]

Any guitar that I care about with a plastic nut, it gets replaced. It doesn't cost that much and it's not hard to do, so why not? And it seems like there's never an instance where a plastic nut is "the better" one. Plastic nuts are sometimes not even solid. Many of them are hollow. Plastic is an insulator of energy (and vibration) so is air. Although I don't use real bone, I've had great luck with TUSQ and graphtec materials.

[David Schwab]

It doesn't cost that much and it's not hard to do, so why not? And it seems like there's never an instance where a plastic nut is "the better" one.

I use Corian for nuts on the instruments I build. Traditionally Gibson and I think Rick use Micarta. I've also used phenolic. Also graphite impregnated nuts are very useful. So not all "plastic" nuts are bad. But the cheap molded plastic ones are. Part of the reason is they don't cut the nut slots, they are molded into the plastic nuts, and not as good as they should be. A hand fitted nut, even made from solid hard plastic, will sound better than a cheap molded nut.

Plastic is an insulator of energy (and vibration) so is air.

That's nonsense. Plastic is an electrical insulator (dielectric). Plastic does not insulate from vibrations, not if it's hard. Bone is also an electrical insulator. Air transmits vibrations just fine, if it didn't you wouldn't be able to hear!

Although I don't use real bone, I've had great luck with TUSQ and graphtec materials.

So there is your instance where plastic is better. You are using plastic. The difference is you are hand cutting it.