Acoustic Guitar Construction

There's a couple of off the shelf compensated nuts -- Earvana, Erie ball etc. (Buzz F is way too many $$$$$) and of course you could make your own -- if nothing else this demo gets you thinking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq21e6Pf1T4

Here's an Ernie Ball nut extension formula for light strings 25.5" scale length It would seem the idea of simply shaving material off the fingerboard is perhaps a mathematically incorrect idea??

So if you want to file your own compensated nut, here's the Ernie Ball measurements for 25.5" scale guitar:

E: .042"
A: .020"
D: .018"
G: .029"
B: .018"
e: .011"

I'm as susceptible as anyone to anything new or weird that comes along, so of course I've read a little bit here and there about the compensated nut
I have thought about experimenting with the removal of a small amount of material off the fretboard at the nut end - somewhere around .7 mm or so based on some anecdotal evidence. The problem is, as usual, I don't have a bunch of fretboards around to experiment on; as a kit builder you've got the one opportunity, which is why the source of the kit is paramount. (I was fortunate to get off on the right foot by purchasing KMG kits.)

Which leads to a couple of questions.
1. Ken Cierp - do you think the compensated nut, or the removal of some fb material, is a 'sound' idea?

2. Do any luthiers compensate their nuts as standard practice, believing it to be actually beneficial, rather than just as a sales gimmick? If it was truly beneficial, I would think Martin, Larrivee, Bourgeois, etc. would be all over it.

I believe that a compensated nut has to be fitted to a guitar, simply stated one size does not fit all -- that is why (I think) major manufacturers do not offer it -- however I believe Fender does have them on the most expensive "Strats".

Yes I believe there is merit to the concept. I plan to make a few, most certainly one for my personal crossover hybrid.

In a couple of words -- not to offend anyone -- shaving "X" amount of material off the end of the fret board in my view is a waste of time. Doing that may "solely by accident" correct one string out of six -- chances are one out of six is pretty good without doing a thing.

I believe Doolin has come to this conclusion. At one time he did take off "X".

The video in this thread has me almost convinced this is not a gimmick, plus classic makers have been doing it for a long while and it seems Buzz Feinten has the repair shops convinced there of some value.

Very interesting.

Is nut compensation in addition to saddle compensation?
Does it affect bridge placement?
How does one go about it? I am just finishing up my cutaway Ditson, and now would be a good time for me to give this a try.

I have used a capo for many more years than I care to remember. When I capo up to the second or third fret, I normally have to retune the low E. Will a compensated nut eliminate this?

Since the capo is stretching the string over a fret and you stretch it again when you fret a note, I doubt a compensated nut would result in a solution. Part of the compensated nut concept has to do with the tiny string length that is dampened by the fret itself -- the mathematical fret position formula is based on the idea that the fret stops the string at the "exact" theoretical fret apex -- obviously that is not the actual situation. The compensated nut to a certain extent adjusts the string length so that this physical error is mostly marginalized -- the most benefit is usually heard at the first three frets. And with that I have share just about all I know about this subject. When I get a chance I'll put a little tutor together showing how to measure for and make the compensated nut with the shelf/extension. Or I could make a video and try and charge you for it ---- just kidding!!!