Floyd Rose nut action

[constant mesh]

Anybody knows what's the proper nut action for a FR tremolo? I leveled a Randy Rhoads for a friend and it started with .030 which I believe was too much any way. Now I got .040 spacing and it's a bit uncomfortable. I'll be lowering the shelf itself since there's enough material, but I don't know what should my base be. With a bone nut I usually go .010 electrics and .020 on acoustics. If I get this one to a half meaning .020'' at the first fret I'm gonna be happy.

Any clues?

[astrozombie]

is this a guitar with a factory installed floyd rose?

[Mr 9finger]

Anybody knows what's the proper nut action for a FR tremolo? I leveled a Randy Rhoads for a friend and it started with .030 which I believe was too much any way. Now I got .040 spacing and it's a bit uncomfortable. I'll be lowering the shelf itself since there's enough material, but I don't know what should my base be. With a bone nut I usually go .010 electrics and .020 on acoustics. If I get this one to a half meaning .020'' at the first fret I'm gonna be happy.

Any clues?

There's something up with this guitar. I've never had a factory Floyd Rose original be more than .015 at the first fret. I just called a buddy with an SL-1 and KV-1 and both of his are just under .010. Without knowing more info, it sounds like this guitar was routed for a lic. Floyd nut, and someone stuck an original Floyd nut on it. I've ran into this a few times, especially when going from the LO TRS/JT580 type systems over to an Original Floyd. The platform of the Lic. nuts are almost always shorter than the Original nuts causing the action to be way too high at the first fret.


Of course since you're already doing this, you do know that you need a squared smooth side file to it properly and it's also VERY important to go slow and steady to make sure you're taking off material EVENLY and not TOO MUCH! Right? Just double checking Actually, that was for anyone else thinking,"Oh yeah, I might just do that."

You could always file the bottom of the nut itself if you don't have the proper tool to do the platform. If it's an Original Floyd nut, be prepared to be at it awhile, as they're hardened steel. I went this route one time and decided it was worth the $40 tool to not have to do it again lol.

[constant mesh]

Yes it's a lic tremolo not a genuine FR. No one ever messed with it, this is how it came out of the factory, no nut change or anything. And there were no shims under the nut.

Don't worry I've got tools for the job. Thanks for the info, I just hope I can make it go below .020'' without any complications.

[aleclee]

When I got my Music Man Axis refretted a few weeks ago, the nut was set to 0.020.

[octavedoctor]

All these measurements are a bit pointless unless you have a reference point for the measurement. What is it? Bottom of string to fingerboard? Clearance over first fret?

I only know one way of setting the nut height and it doesn't involve feeler gauges. You set it so that the guitar feels exactly the same as it does if you put a capo on the first fret...

[constant mesh]

It all went well, I got it down to .015 and I had no troubles. I could go lower but the customer is totally pleased with what we have now.

It was clear we talked clearance between the open string and the first fret. Feeler gauges are precise and cheap so I'll continue to use them. What I don't understand is that you say you rely on the ergonomics but you don't notice that a capo shortens the scale and stiffens up the strings. For example if you play 7th fret with capo on the first fret it will feel stiffer compared to 7th fret with no capo. Based on your theory your nut of choice would be drastically higher than it needs to be, if you get my point. And I know all the tricks that involve nut making and setting up, I just wasn't familiar with the exact height of the locking nut. Instead of planning on the fly I wanted to make sure.

Thanks for the info and for calling your buddy, 9finger. I'm surprised what came out of this RR10. Started with a reverse back-bow, slightly warped neck and worn frets, I didn't have high hopes for it, but fortunately it turned out very well.

[octavedoctor]

It was clear we talked clearance between the open string and the first fret.

yeah sorry, I missed that.

Feeler gauges are precise and cheap so I'll continue to use them.

The feeler gauges are accurate enough, but the problem is that the string can shift when you slide them between string and fret so it's not an accurate measurement, and when dealing with very tight clearances of less than 20 thou then the observation error from this wedging effect can be quite significant and difficult to avoid. It's a bit like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; when the act of observation alters the observed event you cannot determine the parameters of the event with certainty. However if you are able to compensate for this then obviously there is nothing wrong with using them, nor would I attempt to persuade you otherwise

What I don't understand is that you say you rely on the ergonomics but you don't notice that a capo shortens the scale and stiffens up the strings.

There is a slight change in compliance but it's tiny. More significant is that there is less harmonic damping with a nut because the guitarist's finger isn't sitting behind it, absorbing energy from the string; this is why open strings sustain a little longer and sound brighter. My point is that the guitar shouldn't feel any higher at the nut than it does with a capo on the first fret. Logically, the string doesn't need to sit any higher (above the fingerboard datum line) at the nut than it does at the first fret, where its height above the fingerboard is obviously limited by the bead height. If you have to use more effort to fret the string at the first fret than you do if you put a capo on the first and fret it at the second then that's a clear indicator that the strings are too high at the nut.

For example if you play 7th fret with capo on the first fret it will feel stiffer compared to 7th fret with no capo.

Obviously, but I wasn't talking about the 7th fret, I was talking about the first fret, where the change in compliance is very small, and really doesn't have any bearing on the matter anyway.

Based on your theory your nut of choice would be drastically higher than it needs to be, if you get my point.

No, I don't; I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, which is that the string height above the fingerboard doesn't need to be significantly higher than the height of the first fret. If you put a capo on the first fret, then the "open" string sounds from the first fret, which is exactly the same height as the second, third etc. Many stock set ups (and many independent tech set ups) leave the string height at the nut much higher than that, which it doesn't need to be.

And I know all the tricks that involve nut making and setting up, I just wasn't familiar with the exact height of the locking nut. Instead of planning on the fly I wanted to make sure.

I sense that you are feeling defensive but you have no need to be, I wasn't challenging your competence (sorry if you thought I was), simply explaining how I work; which is empirical and intuitive rather than reliant on predetermined measurements which mean nothing to me because each guitar is an individual. By working in this way, referencing each change against the guitar's own geometry, I can be more responsive to individual variations. I don't use feeler gauges anymore and I don't even own a set now.

The reason I questioned your reference point is that I see measuring the clearance over the first fret as being ambiguous; if it's the open string clearance then it is subject to at least two other parameters, the bridge height and the arc relief, changes to which will introduce changes to this parameter.

An alternative way of checking the nut height involves stopping the string between the 2nd and 3rd frets and checking the clearance between the string and the first fret. Reducing the height of the nut until the gap between the string and the first fret is almost - but not quite - zero gives the best action and intonation. That's my experience anyway.

[BrianS.]

An alternative way of checking the nut height involves stopping the string between the 2nd and 3rd frets and checking the clearance between the string and the first fret. Reducing the height of the nut until the gap between the string and the first fret is almost - but not quite - zero gives the best action and intonation. That's my experience anyway.

Yep. Although I wouldn't call this an "alternative" technique.
http://frets.com/FretsPages/Musician...nutaction.html

Frank Ford is my hero.

[octavedoctor]

Yep. Although I wouldn't call this an "alternative" technique.
http://frets.com/FretsPages/Musician...nutaction.html

Frank Ford is my hero.

Yes, I'd call it the only way; I was just being diplomatic.

[RayBarbeeMusic]

I cut the slots then re-level the middle. Its a pain but there is no other way if you want a floyd nut to play as well as you'd expect any other nut to. I'm one of only a few people in the country that will do it, but there is no substitute if you don't want to put up with crappy nut height.

[octavedoctor]

I cut the slots then re-level the middle. Its a pain but there is no other way if you want a floyd nut to play as well as you'd expect any other nut to. I'm one of only a few people in the country that will do it, but there is no substitute if you don't want to put up with crappy nut height.

They come in different radii to match different fingerboard cambers though; usually you only need to do this if the wrong nut has been used. This does happen a lot. The early Sambora Strats were notorious for it and I've seen it on the JS series as well. Seems to me like a lot less work to just get a new nut of the right radius.

My personal gripe with Floyd Rose nuts has been the discrepancy between the arc on the base plate and the headstock rake angle which is the only reason Ibanez ever needed the string bar behind the nut. I've been griping about this for years and I noticed that Ibanez has now cottoned on to the problem themselves and redesigned it as they should have done fifteen years ago. Some of them now have a flat base with an angle of deflection about half that of the headstock. No more need for a tie bar.

[Mr 9finger]

I've missed octavedoctors posts! We need more people like you in this world!

[octavedoctor]

Why thank you; unfortunately I got out of the habit of coming here when things got very busy for me following a change of workshop a couple of years ago. There was a period when nothing came up that I was interested in posting a reply to and as things tend only to kick off here about 11pm GMT and wind down about 4am GMT it is largely out of step with my lifestyle timetable in the UK. I drop in every now and then but usually find that all the interesting threads have been answered and I have little to add, and I don't see any point in posting if I don't have any more to contribute.

[ErikH]

Nice to see you around again, Doc!

[octavedoctor]

Ta very much