Official Luthiers Forum!

Graph Tech claimes that it is superior, I have replaced plastic nuts on two electrics with tusq nuts, but sold both guitars and dont really play electrics so I can't comment on any differences, I was thinking of changing out the nut on the 12 string I just finished because I am not happy with the way it turned out. I also thought I would try a nut ,saddle and pins on my current build using a 3/16 wide nut instead of a 1/4 inch
I do have a Korean built breedlove that has tusq nut and saddle and it sounds very good.
Any comments or opnions appreciated....are their claims to being superior due to consistency true????

_________________
MK5acoustics.com

It may be superior on paper, but 99% of the time, I prefer the sound of bone. It is a personal thing, and the only way you will know is to try both yourself.
I do prefer the narrower nut.

_________________
John

What is the benefit of a narrower nut?

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

There are certainly variations in density on natural bone, so claims of better consistency certainly make sense to me, as compared to a manufactured substance. As to whether a solid bone nut without soft spots sounds better to the listener than a Tusq nut, well, that's a matter of individual preference. I like working with bone, and fabricating my own nuts and saddles. The spots and imperfections are part of the charm for me.

I've made nuts from a huge selection of materials down through the years, and I always liked bone the best. I have made nuts from Tusc, and while it makes a beautiful nut I can tell you that it's harder than the hubs of hell. Hope you have a sander/grinder for roughing out the shape, because it will take an hour with a file.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

I would think a denser material would be a good thing....

_________________
MK5acoustics.com

hmmm ... Maybe the Tusc we get here north of the border is different, but we made a nut from the stuff last night and I found it pretty soft in comparison to bone .. rounded the corners off with a file in about 15 seconds ....

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

One of the benefits of a narrower nut is less surface area for the string to rub on, therefore less friction to bind the string up, therefore more stable tuning. However, if a slightly wider nut is lubricated and slotted to a degree that minimizes friction, the difference is minimal.
I think the 3/16ths nut looks cleaner than having a larger nut, which looks bulky to me. A Narrower nut fits in better to me with a minimally adequate construction philosophy.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Actually, that is true only when dealing with hard flat surfaces held in place by a force. In other words, a 1 square inch object is as difficult to move as a 1 sqare foot object when both are pressed in place by the same force.

However, when dealing with situations where the surfaces deform, such as a string bending around a nut slut so that the string shape is deformed, increased surface area DOES increase friction. In that case, the minimized surface area of the thinner nut slot DOES have an effect of decreasing friction.

When solid materials are soft and deform (such as in a plastic nut) the shapes of the objects rubbing (ridged string) becomes a factor. Bone also deforms slightly (although not as much as plastic) and so does brass. Increased surface area in this case also increases friction.

Material deformation is considered a separate factor than surface deformation, but both can be present, such as in the case where a wide soft plastic ramped nut slot has a ridged string bent slightly around it. A bone nut deforms less than plastic, and a narrower nut has less surface area and therefore less friction under these conditions.

The ideal guitar nut would be made of a smooth hard non deformative material, and would have minimal surface area for the string to deform around, minimizing the frictional forces acting on the string.


I wish I could make a diamond nut 1/16th inch thick, polished smooth in the slots.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Tusq is plastic. You have replaced one plastic with another.

I wish I could make a diamond nut 1/16th inch thick, polished smooth in the slots.[/quote]
I have always wanted to make a quartz crystal nut and probably will in the near future.

There's a difference between a flat surface being PRESSED against another flat surface, which is what your first comment addresses, and a string being pulled into a curved slot, deflecting downward even slightly, into a deformative material such as bone, plastic, or brass. I thought that was pretty clear. In the cases of deformed surfaces ("deformed" meaning "not flat") and deformative solid materials, an increase in surface area DOES increase friction. Therefore, in a wider nut, if the string contacts the nut the whole way, friction IS factually increased over the narrower nut. You have also correctly stated the case that wear resistance is ALSO increased.

However, in either nut, I flare the nut behind the string to reduce the string contact with the nut material, so a wider nut does me little good in wear resistance, since the string to nut contact area in either case is about the same, due to my shaping of the slot, so I use the narrower nut for a cleaner look (in my opinion). If you are doing the same, that would account for your seeing not much difference between the two widths frictionally, and if others are leaving the full contact of the string in the slot, that would account for them seeing increased frictional content of the wider nuts.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Back to the original question, my very limited experience is that when I replaced a Tusq saddle in a Taylor with bone (and compensated in the same way) I personally could detect no difference in sound. Unfortunately I did not record it before and after so I could A/B it but it sounded like the same guitar with the new saddle. Others claim that they hear vast differences.

I personally think nuts have less affect on tone than saddles, so I didn't bother making a new one for the Taylor, and for everything I make, I use plain old cow bone (for personal ethical reasons I won't use any ivories).

It was always my understanding that the reason Taylor and others used Tusq was that they both cast the basic shape and cnc the final slots - look at the saddles on some of their 12 strings and you will see that each string of each course is individually compensated. I have done that with bone saddles on my three 12 strings, it takes many hours to get it right (but worth doing, I would recommend it). A wider saddle blank gives you a lot more material to work with - I know of 12 string players who have routed their saddle slots wider so they can compensate better (I use 1/4" saddles on my 12's)

Spacing at the nut - both between courses and within the course, as well as slot depth - is a very personal thing for a 12 string player and can make a huge difference in the way a 12 plays. I don't see any big advantage to a thicker or thinner nut, however, as long as you get a nice break to the tuners (one of my 12's is a slot head, but the strings still roll nicely over the nut to the tuner).

One of my reasons for the post has to do with a 12 string I just finished. I still need to re fine the nut but for lack of a better description the high e strings are "twangy" I did use a 3/16 saddle as well

_________________
MK5acoustics.com

My preference for a thinner nut is based on the aesthetics, plus the fact that a smaller footprint results in higher pressure, which will help the nut to seat better. As far as string friction or accelerated wear, it does not enter into my analysis. That is because I taper the wider Martin style nuts so that they are no wider than 3/16" at the top.
I used 1/8" nuts on my reproductions of the Jimmie Rodgers Weymanns, and they have worked out just fine.

Make sure the slot is not too wide, and that the bottom of the slot slopes down toward the peghead.

_________________
John

How did you brace it? How did you string it? How did you tune it?

(all this coming from a great believer in heavier strings and down tuning for a 12)

braced on the heavy side standard tuning, light strings...

_________________
MK5acoustics.com

Speaking of alternative nut and saddle materials...

I've always wanted to try petrified wood as a nut and saddle. Not only is it gorgeous, but it's pretty hard and probably pretty durable as well. After all it's basically a tree mineralized over millions of years into a gorgeous rock.

I have it in mind for a build down the road when I have much more experience. I want it to be on a guitar made of all mineralized (sinker) woods, save the bridge, fretboard, neck and bindings.

I know of no company claiming their product is so-so or even inferior to others.
Good bone is plentiful, easy to work with, cheap and perfect for the job, why brainstorm about it? Tone is subjective, but the hardness of bone relative to other materials is not. I want my saddles to last.
Personally I have no ethical issue with legal ivory. For elephant those are tusks that have been in the country for decades if not centuries. Better to make a bridge, pins, saddle and nuts from it than some gaudy trinket. Mammoth ivory is a no brainer.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/