eNUT - Any validity to this?

http://www.monteallums.com/eNut_Installation.html

I've never heard of this mod until today and I wanted to find out if anyone on here has heard of it or used it before.

From what I gathered reading the instructions, this moves the nut closer to the bridge?

:confused::confused:

Puts an unanchored Zero-Fret in the wrong location :confused:

What rhymes with "Snake Oil"?

Yes, it can help. What you are doing is basically adjusting the individual string length at the nut end to get the intonation right on the first few frets. Similar to the Earvana nut system or the Buzz Feiten system, where the nut is moved slightly closer to the bridge.

Pat

Thank you for the responses.
I know now that this is not the solution I need.

Some of the worst, most misguided, and all around bad advice ever.

Wow.
You can see the problems looming round' the corner on this mod.
What is shown is sometimes done by some very well known custom builders.
The piece of bone in front of the nut is sometimes done.
The tang less fret can work too.
Both would need careful adjustment to the instrument.
The advancement of the nut is slight aprox. 7/10's of a mm.
The movement of the "take off point" of the string needs to be balanced with adjustment of the string hight at the first fret for a neutral tempered half step.
Its technically demanding.
A good strobe and a good ear are necessary.
Not usually a DIY adjustment.
Very effective if carried out in the correct manner.
The thickness of the addition needs to be precise or everything will be wrong.
Caveat Emptor .
I advance nuts all the time, its something I've been doing for 20 years.
This is "not" a method I would suggest, although the concept is correct.

I don't understand something here. Doesn't the nut become irrelevant when you fret a note? And isn't the point of the bridge saddle to adjust string length? 1mm in either direction is an easy adjustment from the bridge without modifying a thing. What don't I get?

It's about whether the interval between the nut and the first fret is a perfect half step.

Seems to me to be the long way around a problem that is essentially a function of slot depth in the nut.

Some nuts could use a little push toward the bridge... maybe 10 thou... but this is... wait for it... nuts!

It's about whether the interval between the nut and the first fret is a perfect half step.

Seems to me to be the long way around a problem that is essentially a function of slot depth in the nut.

Some nuts could use a little push toward the bridge... maybe 10 thou... but this is... wait for it... nuts!

In practice its between 15 and 35k depending on the string.
More on some instruments that are hand built and or simply misadjusted.
Instruments made in the last 10 years by most major manufacturers have addressed this problem.
Awareness of sharpness it the first position forced factories to pay more attention to the issue.
Some folks don't want to lower the strings at the nut as they play acoustic guitars that need power on the open strings.
Electric players that play in open position also appreciate the ability to play "campfire" chords in a typical folk/bluegrass style.
For those folks moving the nut forward allows a higher action at the nut while maintaining the neutrality of the half step interval at the first fret.
Many professional musicians have that preference.
In fact the nut is a large factor in the intonation of of the first 8 frets.
Its effect drops off as you ascend closer to the 12 fret.
Many folks in the "vintage" business have seen very old guitars that have been modified in this way. Modified 40 and 50 years ago.
Some people who have perfect pitch insist on playing the guitar anyway.
We need to help those folks out, don't we ?
Although equal temperament is a compromise it is a functional compromise.

Blah...

This eNUt thing is another "Frets 1-5" solution.
I think my problem is the slot depth on my nut being too high (notes play sharp when playing on G&B strings)...don't need another nut or an extension lol.

Thanks guys.

Blah...

This eNUt thing is another "Frets 1-5" solution.
I think my problem is the slot depth on my nut being too shallow (notes sharp when playing on G&B strings)...don't need another nut or an extension lol.

Thanks guys.

It will play flat if too shallow. If the strings are sharp and the nut is low you will need to move the take off point of the nut.

It will play flat if too shallow. If the strings are sharp and the nut is low you will need to move the take off point of the nut.

I've never found this to be true. With the slots cut as low as they can possibly go without buzzing out (dead even to .0005" proud of the plane of the frets), if the nut is perfectly positioned to 12TET spacing strings will still often ring a cent or so sharp. I've never seen them ring flat however.

I've never found this to be true. With the slots cut as low as they can possibly go without buzzing out (dead even to .0005" proud of the plane of the frets), if the nut is perfectly positioned to 12TET spacing strings will still often ring a cent or so sharp. I've never seen them ring flat however.

I agree with this.
I've had some pretty low cut nuts and they've never been cut so that they were flat when open or fretted.
Even with the strongest grip I could give they always went sharp.
For them to be flat when fretted the person cutting the nut would have to have no idea of what tuning the guitar is all about...or completely careless and cut the nut slots too deep.

I believe that AJ Watsky thought I meant shallow in measuring from the bottom of the nut...going up.

I guess my terminology could be clearer.

I've never found this to be true. With the slots cut as low as they can possibly go without buzzing out (dead even to .0005" proud of the plane of the frets), if the nut is perfectly positioned to 12TET spacing strings will still often ring a cent or so sharp. I've never seen them ring flat however.

On recently produced Japanese product if the nut is too low they come up flat.
Just a fact that I've confirmed several times in the recent past.
Some older tech's reflex is to lower the string height at the nut too much.
The reason being in the recent past that was the only solution to the sharpness. They ere on the side of comfort.
( in one case have followed the trail back to the math expert that developed the fret layout and placed the nut using numbers rather than physics.)
Some tech's don't check the intonation and though comfortable it comes up flat.
Lots of high end product has the nut well placed these days.
Lower things too much and you have flatness.
Folks tend to tolerate slight flatness.
Usually they just press harder and compensate that way.
Thats not how I roll.
Your observation is correct for much of the product out there.
2 cents sharp is too much for me. Too much for lots of folks.
All of this is player pressure driven. So there is room for variation.
Micro adjustments are possible and necessary .
For most people this is just theoretic hair splitting.
For me its more like a mission.

Mission indeed.
Well, I can't discount your experiences...as they are yours.
Scary to hear though...mainly because I didn't think that could happen.

If the nut slots are too shallow, in other words, not cut deep (low) enough, it makes you stretch the string more to fret it in the first five frets and it will play sharp, not flat. I have never had a nut slot issue be the cause of flat intonation.

I've spend a lot, a lot of time paying very close attention to these details, studying, listening, measuring and recording data more than anyone I know of, and still have to disagree with your conclusions quite strongly.

If a nut is placed at "perfect" positioning according to conventional 2^(1/12) spacing, there is simply no way that you can bring the first fret flat by cutting the nut too low. If the nut is compensated too far forward relative to 2^(1/12) spacing, then yes, it can come up a bit flat if you cut the slots down to the same plane as the frets, which may be the case in the Japanese instruments you've encountered this with. On a standard conventional nut positioning however, the effect of flattening from a nut cut low is just not possible in my experience.

I've spend a lot, a lot of time paying very close attention to these details, studying, listening, measuring and recording data more than anyone I know of, and still have to disagree with your conclusions quite strongly.



Hi David.

Greg Byers and Mike Doolin have spent equally as much time measuring and recording data, and the conclusion they both reach is that it is impossible to achieve optimum intonation without nut compensation.

I like to term it the "clothesline effect" , whereby it requires perceptibly more pressure to depress the string at the first fret than at the twelfth.

If the frets and the nut are located perfectly according to the 2^12 formula, and if you tune the fretted string at the 3rd fret spot on, then the open string will be flat. Guaranteed.

Nut compensation is the only answer.

I'm quite familiar with both Byers and Doolin's work, and have relatively few disagreements with either of them. Where my positions may differ from theirs is primarily on points of degree, and not direction.

The issue in question here is one of direction however, where I would say that both Byers and Doolin's work agrees with my own statements, in that it is not possible for a note to end up flat in the lower frets with a conventionally placed nut, regardless of how low the slots are cut.

If the nut slots are too shallow, in other words, not cut deep (low) enough, it makes you stretch the string more to fret it in the first five frets and it will play sharp, not flat. I have never had a nut slot issue be the cause of flat intonation.

Oh, I see what your saying. Yes, your correct.
By shallow I read low, not high regarding string height from fret.
You wrote shallow referring to the depth of slot.

I'm quite familiar with both Byers and Doolin's work, and have relatively few disagreements with either of them. Where my positions may differ from theirs is primarily on points of degree, and not direction.

The issue in question here is one of direction however, where I would say that both Byers and Doolin's work agrees with my own statements, in that it is not possible for a note to end up flat in the lower frets with a conventionally placed nut, regardless of how low the slots are cut.

What convention are you referring to ?
Every builder makes their own convention.
Its possible to come up flat.
As I explained above.
Its a matter of people over doing when getting into their comfort zone.
They are lowering the string in the slot too far.
I won't mention brands but recently I've had late production stuff come in that had the nuts placed perfectly that had had the strings lowered in the slots to such a degree that in fact they were flat. Slightly flat.
If the strings were any lower the instrument would not have played at the first fret. In an effort to make the nut "nice" which is to say low, the tech had ruined the perfect work ( in Japan BTW) that had been done at the factory.
So this is an isolated case of a factory, in an effort to perfect their product slightly over compensating. Shimming the nut a few .000 was all that was necessary to set things right.
It happens.
If you see hundreds of guitars every year, everything happens.

Hi David.

Greg Byers and Mike Doolin have spent equally as much time measuring and recording data, and the conclusion they both reach is that it is impossible to achieve optimum intonation without nut compensation.

I like to term it the "clothesline effect" , whereby it requires perceptibly more pressure to depress the string at the first fret than at the twelfth.

If the frets and the nut are located perfectly according to the 2^12 formula, and if you tune the fretted string at the 3rd fret spot on, then the open string will be flat. Guaranteed.

Nut compensation is the only answer.


Well, I don't measure my pitch with a super tuner, just a desk top strobe, but if I tune the open string dead on, and play the third fret, it will be sharp at the third until I cut the nut slot to the point at which there is barely a gap (we're talking a couple of thousandths) at the first fret when the string is depressed at the third fret. When I get the slot low enough, both the open and third frets read spot on with my tuner. If I don't cut the slots, my guitars play noticeably sharp in the first position. It is a rare production guitar which does not need a few, if not all, the slots cut deeper than the factory cuts them.

I'm quite familiar with both Byers and Doolin's work, and have relatively few disagreements with either of them. Where my positions may differ from theirs is primarily on points of degree, and not direction.

The issue in question here is one of direction however, where I would say that both Byers and Doolin's work agrees with my own statements, in that it is not possible for a note to end up flat in the lower frets with a conventionally placed nut, regardless of how low the slots are cut.

DC
If its "proper" there's nothing to fix. We're done.
We were discussing what to do when things had gone wrong not how things are when they are right.
:smile: AW

I've never found this to be true. With the slots cut as low as they can possibly go without buzzing out (dead even to .0005" proud of the plane of the frets), if the nut is perfectly positioned to 12TET spacing strings will still often ring a cent or so sharp. I've never seen them ring flat however.

I would entertain the notion that the misplacement of these nuts was the result of a production run mishap ?
I've written production reports on stuff much stranger and troubling than a misplaced ( by a few k) nut.

If by "what convention are you referring to" you are referring to to my use of the word "conventionally", by this I mean in precise accordance to the 12th root of 2 spacing relative to the frets. Of course this is not to infer that everyone does or always has used this system perfectly, but it is the most widely accepted and understood reference point to use.

I see hundreds of guitars every year, and I pay very close and special attention to intonation, and I've never seen this happen, or at least not on a guitar with the nut and frets spaced in strict accordance with the 12th root of 2 spacing. Nut slots cut high will certainly cause sharpening. Nut slots cut properly, to within a thousandth of so of the plane of the frets, will still generally cause an ever so slight sharpening for most player's styles. If cut low enough it can mitigate this sharpening to such a small level as to be acceptable or even unnoticeable for many players, while others may need a bit of forward compensation of the nut. I've never seen a net flattening in a conventionally positioned nut (defined above) resulting from slots being cut as low as possible.

For the record, I do find nut slots to be quite inconsistent and sporadic from a lot of manufacturers, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that instruments you have found this phenomenon with may have had nuts positioned forward from the 2^(1/12) spacing, whether intentional or not.

If by "what convention are you referring to" you are referring to to my use of the word "conventionally", by this I mean in precise accordance to the 12th root of 2 spacing relative to the frets. Of course this is not to infer that everyone does or always has used this system perfectly, but it is the most widely accepted and understood reference point to use.

I see hundreds of guitars every year, and I pay very close and special attention to intonation, and I've never seen this happen, or at least not on a guitar with the nut and frets spaced in strict accordance with the 12th root of 2 spacing. Nut slots cut high will certainly cause sharpening. Nut slots cut properly, to within a thousandth of so of the plane of the frets, will still generally cause an ever so slight sharpening for most player's styles. If cut low enough it can mitigate this sharpening to such a small level as to be acceptable or even unnoticeable for many players, while others may need a bit of forward compensation of the nut. I've never seen a net flattening in a conventionally positioned nut (defined above) resulting from slots being cut as low as possible.

We are not in disagreement.
I too pay close attention to intonation.
I was surprised and thrilled to see this happen. Found it interesting.
Same guy had the instruments, he was a "rep" for the brand. Imagine his delight.
If you advance the nut you can see flatness if the set up is too low.
Very rare in an unmodified (apart from set up) production guitar.
Sharpness as you know is much more common.

Dave and Al,

For openers... I wished y'all would quit arguing long enough to realize you're both 98% on the same page... just teasing... sort of...:mrgreen:

I am about to build some Strat/Tele necks here... first time for me without buying slotted fretboards from LMII. At the same time, I'm looking at a brand new 2009 Fender AM DLX Strat neck with the Stewmac fret slotting template laid over it. The Stewmac template is TET... and my measurements confirm it. My best measurement says that Fender has moved the nut 12-15 thou closer to 1st fret fret. (BTW... the LMII boards basically give you 12 thou compensation serendipitously... I think I read there somewhere this was a good thing... and didn't think about much after that)

The physics here doesn't confuse me in the least... why I enjoyed all the lively debate. But I don't have any of the been-there-done-that... and I prefer to nail things on the first pass... nice wood ain't cheap. I WON'T be using the slots in the Stewmac plate for the nut... at least not in their stock form.

My question is this: do think think it reasonable for a guy to push the nut forward off TET 12 thou... and then assume that the slot depth in the nut will wind up reasonable? Of course, once the nut is set, the slot depth is the last thing that can adjust intonation. I don't need the strings EXACTLY on the fret plane... but I can't stand them way high... and and should leave a bit of meat in the bottom of the slot to account for wear. The guitars I've done are out the door... and I never checked intonation at the lower frets... knowing that there wasn't anything I could do about it.

12 thou deviation from TET sound good?

And thanks in advance.

Dave and Al,

For openers... I wished y'all would quit arguing long enough to realize you're both 98% on the same page... just teasing... sort of...:mrgreen:

I am about to build some Strat/Tele necks here... first time for me without buying slotted fretboards from LMII. At the same time, I'm looking at a brand new 2009 Fender AM DLX Strat neck with the Stewmac fret slotting template laid over it. The Stewmac template is TET... and my measurements confirm it. My best measurement says that Fender has moved the nut 12-15 thou closer to 1st fret fret. (BTW... the LMII boards basically give you 12 thou compensation serendipitously... I think I read there somewhere this was a good thing... and didn't think about much after that)

The physics here doesn't confuse me in the least... why I enjoyed all the lively debate. But I don't have any of the been-there-done-that... and I prefer to nail things on the first pass... nice wood ain't cheap. I WON'T be using the slots in the Stewmac plate for the nut... at least not in their stock form.

My question is this: do think think it reasonable for a guy to push the nut forward off TET 12 thou... and then assume that the slot depth in the nut will wind up reasonable? Of course, once the nut is set, the slot depth is the last thing that can adjust intonation. I don't need the strings EXACTLY on the fret plane... but I can't stand them way high... and and should leave a bit of meat in the bottom of the slot to account for wear. The guitars I've done are out the door... and I never checked intonation at the lower frets... knowing that there wasn't anything I could do about it.

12 thou deviation from TET sound good?

And thanks in advance.

Howdy, Yup thats the zone, 12-15k.
Remember that as you advance the nut your height at the nut must increase. So Its a balancing act.

Thanks Monte and Al,

I just want to have a prudent starting point... physics (engineering) is what pays for my woman, guitars, tools, and drinking problems. I appreciate pros and other masters weighing in.

Monte and Al, do you think they (Fender)are overcompensating the nut position... just to allow more latitude in slot depth? I ask because the 2010-2011 AM DLX Tele I just measured had flats on the the top of the frets about 0.02 to 0.025 wide... which would do well to keep a guitar in tune longer... as the frets wear. The frets are not fully "crowned"... And frankly, that takes me back a few years. This is a moving target... and I can certainly respect the fact that a nut should have some "meat" left in for recutting/touch-up

PoA

Here's what I noticed on the 2010 AM DLX tele I looked at. The flats on the frets weren't sloppy or inconsistant... in fact they seemed crafted... deliberate.

That's not a very defendable patent either.

Supreme Court is currently gutting the USPTO... it is a broken thing.

I'm not in the same league as you more experienced folks here but I've managed over the years to keep my instruments running at their best and have even garnered a few compliments along the way regarding intonation, etc. First off just let me say I'm a zero fret guy. Call it intuition. Call it what you like. It just makes sense to me somehow.

As for the complications regarding the install of one of these things I'm not going to go there but I do have a question for you, did anyone try the intonation technique Monty describes? I just did. I fretted each string at whatever note came up first on my 6-string tuner at either the 2nd or third fret then up the neck at the corresponding fret an octave higher. The e & b-strings were pretty much dead-on but I couldn't believe how far the bass strings needed to move forward. Also, now I tune the notes as they come on the tuner on either the 2nd or 3rd frets using no open strings at all and for the first time since I got this guitar I can actually play it without having to tune every other chord change [it was getting that bad]. Its not perfect but it works for me.

Just my 2¢ . . . YMMV.