Author Topic: Some thoughts about adjustable nuts  (Read 907 times)

lbpesq

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10683
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« on: February 01, 2016, 07:21:28 PM »
Like most of us, I have always considered the adjustable nut on my Alembics to be a wonderfully simple and yet surprisingly effective design, illustrative of the innovative qualities we have come to appreciate in our instruments.
 
Some of you may have read posts where I have written about the Babicz Full Contact bridge saddles.  These replace the standard Fender type saddle, (where the physical connection with the body is two small adjustment screws), with saddles that rest flat on the body and have internal cams that raise and lower the strings.  When I replace the Fender type saddles with the Babicz saddles on both Strat and Tele type guitars, the acoustic volume virtually doubles.  This translates to better tone and more sustain plugged in.
 
So, I got to thinking: What's happening at the other end, at the nut?  Does the adjustable nut, where the physical connection with the neck is only with the three screws, result in a change in tone?  Does a traditional nut, which has full physical contact with the neck, have sonic advantages?  Does the area of physical connection where the strings connect to the intrument at the bridge and nut impact differently at the two extremes?  I suspect that the bridge has more impact as the body is more massive than the neck, but it's just a guess.
 
Just thinkin'
 
Bill, tgo

adriaan

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4318
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2016, 09:51:57 AM »
If you should forget to tighten the middle screw at the nut after setting the height with the two outer ones, you will notice a loss of sustain - at least on a bass. So to a degree there might be a change in tone, but only when used incorrectly. At the other end, don't forget that the bridge connects to the body/sustain block only by two screws, so it is far from full contact - which doesn't seem to harm sustain.

edwin

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3433
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2016, 07:29:54 PM »
I would think nut issues would only be a problem with open strings. Not that that isn't sometimes important, but given that I rarely use open strings, it's not a huge problem that I've heard.

bigredbass

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3032
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2016, 10:36:40 PM »
IIRC, I seem to have read where Ron's idea of the brass nut (on a brass base) and bridge atop the sustain block was to isolate the strings from the influence of the wood body, to where with the lower magnetic pull from low impedance pickups and the brass isolation, the string could vibrate as long as possible.  Of course this is only completely operable on open strings, but nonetheless, fretted notes are ending on the sustain block/bridge on the other end.  They weren't adjustable at first, but always brass, I believe.
 
That's where the sustain is, and the strings drive the pickups which are influenced in some fashion by the body makeup.  To me, the harder the woods, the more defined the tone.  Think ebony lams or the Warwicks made out of those crazy, dense African woods.  A different flavor of the same thing is my Elan, all maple and ash.
Start mixing all the other choices, including mahogany and it tends to soften that harder edge.
 
The sustain is also fed by the laminations, another idea to scatter the resonances by using the different densities of the selected woods for the neck (though not always entirely successful due to physics:  Hard to get away from that pale B on the D-string sometimes), and since the neckthru has no break for a bolt or set neck, the first several harmonics carry thru better, the real secret of neck-thru construction, not 'better sustain', which has already been seen to by the other features.  IF, when you play a low C or D, and you can hear a repeating beat at the bottom of the note, you are hearing that neckthru at work.
 
'Better sustain' has always to me been more a function of reasonably live strings and decent technique, after the guitar's construction is included.  Hell, plug in a beginner Squier on a loud stage, it'll  sustain just fine.  
 
I think for me, the Babicz is today's take on the 70's idea of yanking your pot metal bridge (just like today on a Fender ! ! ) and replacing it (in those days) with some fat, brass aftermarket bridge, like those fatso DiMarzio's or the Stars parts.  I did that back then, then when I started playing neckthru BB Yamahas, they had the same pokey little bridges like Fenders and they sustained a lot like an Alembic.  
 
The 70's and 80's BB's were as Alembic influenced as all the Japanese basses of the day were.  Slab ebony fingerboard, five piece laminated necks, sound familiar, and they sustained just fine with a tacky little bridge. Loud enough to hear fine unplugged.  Hmmmmm . . . . .Didn't buy any more bridges.
 
Strats and Teles, etc., are far simpler systems, and I have no doubt you can hear that bridge, and hey, if it works for you, that's all that matters.
 
Joey
 
(Message edited by bigredbass on February 02, 2016)

keith_h

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3490
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2016, 05:15:43 AM »
Joey,
You forgot the Badass II. I will say it was the best upgrade I did to my Jazz Bass when it was still passive. I did modify it slightly by using larger attachment screws but its mass and size helped sustain substantially. However its more important characteristic was the stability of the strings, lack of noise it introduced and the intonation problems it fixed. The sloppy screw holes of the Fender for the saddles, the springs and flat base they sit on let the bridge parts move all over the place and rattle. The Badass added channels for the saddles and was much tighter in tolerances so things didn't move much making it more stable once it was setup. Alembic addressed these same issues much more elegantly with their bridges by using the adjusting screw and rail to keep the saddles in alignment.  
 
Keith

sonicus

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5947
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2016, 06:13:52 AM »
Many years ago the best improvement to a passive made in USA Fender  Jazz Bass  was install a SCHALLER roller bridge. I already had a BADASS bridge on a made in USA  Precision Bass  
 
  The Schaller  roller bridge is my favorite of the one piece bridge units !  
 
http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-463-4-String-Bass-Bridge-Chrome-P914.aspx
 
Wolf

mario_farufyno

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1799
  • Alembic Rogue 4 strings
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2016, 09:40:24 AM »
wow, Joey, that was eye opening
Not just a bass, this is an Alembic!

bigredbass

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3032
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2016, 11:23:58 PM »
Keith, I sure did.  The BadAss was the 'go to' hop-up bridge for a lot of guys, and was used as OEM in some cases as well.
 
This sort of thing (all the aftermarket parts for Fenders) sets an interesting observation:
 
Fender (and their landmark of building the first commercially successful electric bass) and Alembic (that same product refined thru the eyes and ears of an artist and engineer) had two fundamentally different approaches, both world-changing.
 
Fender saw a need (as did George Eastman, Hershey, King Gillette, and others) to take a radically different approach to constructing a low cost instrument.  He skipped all the cabinet makers woodworking, screwed a neck to a plank with rudimentary pickups and hardware, and the world beat a path to his door.  Fender saw it as a shop problem, not a deeply felt need for a different musical instrument.  Hell, at first, they thought guys would unscrew the neck so it would travel more compactly.  The amps were taken straight from the RCA tube manuals, as tube amps were the norm at the time.  To predate Hartley Peavey (a huge fan of Leo Fender), they were working man's tools that could be had on a working man's wage, far less than an ES or LP or a Gretsch.
 
But as in many things, there is a great deal of elegance and useability in simplicity.  And those basic planforms of Tele, Strat, and Precision were ripe for better bridges, keys, and electronics, and the market responded where players wanted these things.
 
Alembic's idea was driven by Ron's observation that the basic idea could be much better than what was current.  The Alembic Series pickup system has never, nor will it ever be bettered.  The idea of wide-r aperture single coil pickups that could be tuned to virtually eliminate any noise was groundbreaking, as was their frequency response.  Making them low impedance helped this, as well as removing any worry of magnetics-induced drag.  The filters removed any phase rotation from conventional pots, and allowed for any amount of thud or snarky highs you could stand.  Phantom power guaranteed the headroom:  You could add distortion inline, but you'd have a damn hard time making the bass do it on its own.
These things are why you suddenly think you're all thumbs for a while after your first Alembic comes home with you.  It's that clean . . . . because it's that clean, and what else would you expect from a former Ampex engineer?  It's classic high-end audio:  Serious parts kept to a minimum in a simple design with as few gew-gaws between point A and point B to keep things clean and untouched as possible.
 
The tone was a revolution.  
 
Taken to its' ultimate expression of a Series left and right into an F2B and then left and right to a stereo power amp and paired cabinets, alongside a P-Bass thru an Acoutic or Ampeg of the day, it was the first time bass players had a complete and proper system with no excuses or shortcuts, with elegantly simple high end controls.  There is still nothing like it today, in a world full of basses with batteries and 3-band EQ and amps with graphics and/or parametrics, even octave boxes built in.  For what?  Is it so thin you just need all this to get there?
 
Then you suspend the strings over this system, with the thought being to isolate them from the body, seemingly contrary to what most think that the better string/body meld is where the sustain is.  You may need a tight joint on a Fender neck pocket, but we're in another world here.
 
Now you build the body to have a continuous frame beneath the strings for durability, and to eliminate that neck joint.  Use 1/4 ebony for durability and harder woods as well in the neckthru with the laminations' grain running in opposite directions.  This adds mechanical strength, but the different properties of these hardwoods tend to raise the resonances, hopefully, out of hearing range.  The other not talked about advantage of carbon-fibre necks.  Add the body wings to make the desired shape and balance, and you're there.  And yet the woods color the tone, so harder for more attack and fundamental (the mighty ebony lams) or some mix of the softer mahogany-ish woods to let a little air in and smooth it out.  Much less the looks of the things !!
 
There's no aftermarket parts for Alembic.  It was designed as a whole system, of re-imagined electronics and wood construction, in a way never seen before in one place on one instrument.
 
That's why to me, Ron and Susan, are easily on the short list with Mr. Fender, Les Paul, Rupert Neve, etc.  They really came quite close to re-inventing the wheel.
 
These were from the start, artist grade instruments, which was unheard of in bass guitars, and bass as we now know it would be far different if The Bear hadn't stimulated that original Dead-based search for a better way to do things.  A lot of this is lost on guitar players, who are still looking for a wiggle stick that will always stay in tune and the perfect tube amp, but there's always hope . . . .
 
Sorry for the long winded posts, I promise I'm not on new meds . . . . . .
 
Joey

elwoodblue

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2784
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2016, 12:28:54 AM »
Nice Synopsi(plural for synopsis?) Joey.
I'll refer guitarists in the future to your post.
 
One more word(sort of); 2Tek.
 
...I might need new meds ...

slawie

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 977
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2016, 04:09:26 AM »
You're a true wordsmith Joey!
“Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality.”
Abraham Lincoln

moongerm

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 575
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2016, 05:15:43 AM »
Love reading your posts Joey.
 
-Brian

rraymond

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 435
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2016, 06:40:53 AM »
I got absolutely nothing to add to this discussion technically, but Adjustable Nuts sounds like a great band name! LOL
 
Great thread, BTW.

adriaan

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4318
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2016, 11:12:52 AM »
Plural would be synopses, but my Latin is a bit rusty.

gtrguy

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2694
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2016, 11:14:01 AM »
I have a question: I have strummed many laptop guitars, with the strings way up off the neck, and they seem to really ring out and sound great.
 
I have always wondered how that is?

elwoodblue

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2784
Some thoughts about adjustable nuts
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2016, 11:42:59 AM »
Thanks Adriaan...I'll blame it on the rusty synapses ...(another good band name!).