string height at nut- - - zero fret

[phavriluk]

I don't want to muddy up a current thread about setting string height at a conventional nut.

I'm confused as to how checking for a few thousandths' clearance at the 1st fret while capoing between the 2nd and 3rd frets could happen if the zero fret was the same height as the 2nd fret (which I thought was the whole idea of a zero fret.

Are we just making sure that a conventional nut's slots are not lower than the first fret's by looking for that tiny air gap?

Thanks.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by phavriluk

I don't want to muddy up a current thread about setting string height at a conventional nut.

I'm confused as to how checking for a few thousandths' clearance at the 1st fret while capoing between the 2nd and 3rd frets could happen if the zero fret was the same height as the 2nd fret (which I thought was the whole idea of a zero fret.

Are we just making sure that a conventional nut's slots are not lower than the first fret's by looking for that tiny air gap?

Thanks.

I use zero frets and prefer that they end up a few thousandths higher than the other frets, and it's not uncommon for other builders to do likewise.

The physics of the vibrating string path will be more easily accommodated by adding a tiny bit of height at the nut slot of top of the zero fret due to the curvature of the fret board when adding relief. The argument is always made that it's simply adding another fret, but you have to factor in that the inter-fret distance is exponential, so the need to accomodate the vibrating path of the open string is greatest for that zero to first fret distance.

Another good reason for the preference for adding a few thousandths additional height for an actual nut is because the nut slot will wear down slightly over time and this prevents the string from making premature contact with the first fret when it is played forcefully.

[phavriluk]

The nut is a few thousandths higher in its' slots' plane, and the zero fret does the same, so where can a capo fit into the discussion? A capo nullifies that higher string position at the nut/zero fret.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by phavriluk

The nut is a few thousandths higher in its' slots' plane, and the zero fret does the same, so where can a capo fit into the discussion? A capo nullifies that higher string position at the nut/zero fret.

Yes, and a capo placed at the first fret removes that exponentially longer nut to fret distance that the higher zero fret or slightly higher nut slot helps with.

In answer to your question, a capo doesn't fit anywhere in the discussion.

[Simon Fay]

I don't use a capo, I just fret and then check the airspace between the string and 1st fret.

If the zero fret is exactly on the level of the other frets, you don't have any airspace - to verify this, just run the test for the 1st fret instead of the zero fret (you'd check for airspace on the 2nd fret in this scenario). The string should rest perfectly on the 2nd fret because it is on the same level as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc ...

The entire goal here is to have the zero fret (or nut) string height be on the exact same level as the other frets. Even a few thousandths lower and you will get buzzing. This is why it is simply better to make sure the string height locations at the nut or zero fret are just a bit higher than "ideal". The other very real issue here is that it helps to add additional height, especially for the bass strings. The treble strings don't really need much additional height but if you play in alternate/dropped tunings, it is useful to have the string be a bit higher so that you can pluck the open strings heavily and not get buzzing.

[John Arnold]

Yes, and a capo placed at the first fret removes that exponentially longer nut to fret distance that the higher zero fret or slightly higher nut slot helps with.

In answer to your question, a capo doesn't fit anywhere in the discussion.

When you capo on the second fret, the new 'nut' is at fret height. Then move the capo to the first fret, which does, as you say, result in an exponentially longer nut to fret distance. Still, your new 'nut' is at fret height.
Carried to a logical conclusion, the nut should be at fret height.
The only reason to do otherwise is on the 6th string, which can back buzz unless it is raised a few thousandths.
Relief does enter in to this analysis, but considering that total relief should be in the 0.005" range, the difference is imperceptable.

[bnjp]

Originally Posted by John Arnold

When you capo on the second fret, the new 'nut' is at fret height. Then move the capo to the first fret, which does, as you say, result in an exponentially longer nut to fret distance. Still, your new 'nut' is at fret height.
Carried to a logical conclusion, the nut should be at fret height.
The only reason to do otherwise is on the 6th string, which can back buzz unless it is raised a few thousandths.
Relief does enter in to this analysis, but considering that total relief should be in the 0.005" range, the difference is imperceptable.

Definitely a little higher on the 6th fret slot. I see this a lot with bass guitars and drop tuning electrics. We set up a lot of 7 and 8 string electric guitars, too. Fret height on those low strings will almost always rattle if cut too low. Not uncommon to have metal players who drop-tune to C or C#.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by John Arnold

When you capo on the second fret, the new 'nut' is at fret height. Then move the capo to the first fret, which does, as you say, result in an exponentially longer nut to fret distance. Still, your new 'nut' is at fret height.
Carried to a logical conclusion, the nut should be at fret height.
The only reason to do otherwise is on the 6th string, which can back buzz unless it is raised a few thousandths.
Relief does enter in to this analysis, but considering that total relief should be in the 0.005" range, the difference is imperceptable.

Since the string vibrating length is effectively shortened, the need for next fret clearance becomes much less important when capoing.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

I don't use a capo, I just fret and then check the airspace between the string and 1st fret.

If the zero fret is exactly on the level of the other frets, you don't have any airspace - to verify this, just run the test for the 1st fret instead of the zero fret (you'd check for airspace on the 2nd fret in this scenario). The string should rest perfectly on the 2nd fret because it is on the same level as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc ...

The entire goal here is to have the zero fret (or nut) string height be on the exact same level as the other frets. Even a few thousandths lower and you will get buzzing. This is why it is simply better to make sure the string height locations at the nut or zero fret are just a bit higher than "ideal". The other very real issue here is that it helps to add additional height, especially for the bass strings. The treble strings don't really need much additional height but if you play in alternate/dropped tunings, it is useful to have the string be a bit higher so that you can pluck the open strings heavily and not get buzzing.

The capo was used as an example of making the first fret the new "nut" position; no inference that it should be used when setting slot depth.

Yes, and it can happen in regular tuning dependent upon how heavy-handed the player is.

Adjusting neck relief and adding that tiny amount of extra string height at the nut (or zero fret" can make the difference between clear open notes and annoying buzz. Looking at the true shape of a string's path when excited will reveal why that additional clearance can be helpful.

Eliminating the chance for back buzz is also a benefit from a few thousandths of additional height.

The amount of additional height is so minimal that it won't be perceived by the player so I'm always befuddled by anyone's insistence that everything has to be at the same level. These are points that can be addressed when a set up is done if someone feels the absolute need to build in a higher chance for open string buzz.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

The amount of additional height is so minimal that it won't be perceived by the player so I'm always befuddled by anyone's insistence that everything has to be at the same level.

It provides the opportunity for one to prove one is right and the other is wrong, to assert that one's heavily-invested belief is more correct than someone else's different heavily-invested belief. It also provides the opportunity to argue over something. Welcome to common human behaviours.

[Robin, Wales]

For us mere mortals wielding nut files, it is easy to see when the slot is too high. It is easy to see when the slot is too low. It is difficult to tell if the slot is the same height as or a little lower then the first fret. Consequently, the simplest thing is to cut the slots just a fraction higher than the first fret. Get one of the 6 slots too low and you are in trouble leading to slot filling or a nut shim or a new nut.

Plus most guitars in the real world are under <$500; they are not going to have had a fret level and the fretboard itself or truss rod or neck geometry is not going to be exactly as it should.

Leaving the slots just a hair higher than the first fret is "pragmatic" rather than "perfect". Most of the time a "tech" rather than a luthier is looking to get the best playability they can with what they have in front of them. And, in reality, it is not too difficult to make great improvements in playability on most sub $500 guitars coming out of factories simply by setting the relief, lowering the nut slots to just above the level of the first fret and sanding/shaping the saddle (plus perhaps tackling any obvious fret installation problems).

As I have found, you can vastly improve the intonation of a guitar simply by replacing the factory strings that the guy has had on it for the last 18 months! Not an uncommon phenomena in the "real world" of guitar playing!