|
Sorry, but I just got my computer back last night. Other than a brief stop
at the library I have been without a computer since wednesday.
I only compensate the first few frets themselves. The reason I don't
compensate the nut is because it can add additional compensation where
it's not really needed, throwing off the 5-10 range, and the 15th onward.
Compensating all the frets would compound this problem.
I think I mentioned this before, but this is really somewhat of an idealist
method. When you put away the calculators and strobe tuners and sit
down and play, I don't know if you would really see a difference from the
compensated nut. I should mention that the only time I've seen the
problems mentioned above has been when I've tried to push the nut
compensation too far. If the nut is compensation is kept below .020"-.
025" and the saddle is brought forward the same I haven't really seen any
problems.
Recently I've even wanted to try a new approach, but I haven't been
building anything lately. Since of course the ideal compensation changes
across the strings, I think the ideal approach would be with curved frets.
Unfortunatly it would be very impractical to slot or dress. Gibson patented
a system of this style a few years ago. The high E really doesn't need to
be compensated past the 1st or 2nd fret, and the B not usually past the
2nd or 3rd. I've been thinking to compensate just the first two frets
around .013" and .008", then also adding a curved compensated nut. The
nut would curve from zero compensation at the high E, to around .010"-.
015" in the center, and back down two about .005" at the bass.
Whether you put the compensation in the nut or in the frets, either
should be fine as long as done in moderation. If you do move the frets
though, just bump the first few. David Collins39020.4284606481
_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
