Another Nut Width discussion
Comments
My nuts vary between 42 and 45mm and it just takes a few minutes to adapt when switching between them.
I think other factors will come into play as well such as teh neck profile and depth.
I think other factors will come into play as well such as teh neck profile and depth.
Yes, neck profile will make a big difference, probably more so than just the width.
Personally I don't find it a problem.
I've found that some players have issues with fingerpicking, bearing in mind the string separation will get bigger and more noticeable further up the neck. Some may find 1 11/16 a bit 'crowded' over the soundhole whereas 1 3/4 will give a bit more space.
I've found that some players have issues with fingerpicking, bearing in mind the string separation will get bigger and more noticeable further up the neck. Some may find 1 11/16 a bit 'crowded' over the soundhole whereas 1 3/4 will give a bit more space.
Profile makes a huge difference. I normally can’t get on with anything wider than 1-11/16”, but I have a guitar with a 1-3/4” width and a very shallow profile - especially at the ‘shoulder’ area, the widest part of the neck by some margin is the edge of the fingerboard - which is fine.
It is not difficult to swap but it does take time to get used to it, and you can't exceed your limits. @ICBM (for example) doesn't feel comfortable over 43mm (bar his one 44.5mm instrument with a shallow carve). I'm happy anywhere between 44mm and 48mm (and used to cope OK with 50mm when I had a guitar of that width) but can't abide those squeezy 43mm things and would probably struggler with 52mm.
It really does take a little while to get used to an "out of range" nut width, so don't stress it. But also, don't go beyond what you can get used to. And take the neck carve into account. My 44.5mm Furch, for example, feels wider than that because it's a V neck; my 47mm Tacoma feels more like 46mm or less because it's a slim carve.
But swapping between any two things within your comfort zone, that becomes second nature. Not an issue.
It really does take a little while to get used to an "out of range" nut width, so don't stress it. But also, don't go beyond what you can get used to. And take the neck carve into account. My 44.5mm Furch, for example, feels wider than that because it's a V neck; my 47mm Tacoma feels more like 46mm or less because it's a slim carve.
But swapping between any two things within your comfort zone, that becomes second nature. Not an issue.
Thanks everyone for your useful comments
That’s enough now Gregg.drofluf said:My nuts vary between 42 and 45mm and it just takes a few minutes to adapt when switching between them.
I think it's quite a personal thing how much you notice small changes in nut width. This discussion came up some time ago and it seems like some people are very set on a particular width and can't stand anything even 1mm different. Others say they can tell the difference but don't really care. Personally I'm sure I wouldn't even notice a 1mm nut width change - I have a 12-string that's obviously a fair bit wider than my normal acoustic and that does feel noticeably weird to me (similarly I'd assume with a classical guitar, but I've not played one) but between say 43 and 44mm I honestly don't think I'd even notice. My normal acoustic is apparently 43mm width.
The shaping of the fingerboard edges and fret ends can make enough difference to the available playing width that it can be as important as small variations in overall width. My Eastman E1OM is 1 3/4" with very heavily rounded edges, and it really feels no roomier than my Gibson G45 with 1.72", crisp square edges and a small bevel on the frets. But if you looked at the spec sheet alone it would be easy to reject one before even picking it up.
Yeah exactly. Some people notice and care, some notice and don't care and some just don't notice at all! I'm not as bad as I was, but I still notice. Funnily enough, I don't notice scale length differences as much, and some of the people I've talked to online who didn't notice nut width differences very much did notice scale length differences! Not sure if there's a correlation there or not...DartmoorHedgehog said:I think it's quite a personal thing how much you notice small changes in nut width. This discussion came up some time ago and it seems like some people are very set on a particular width and can't stand anything even 1mm different. Others say they can tell the difference but don't really care.
Plus as people said above, other neck specs can make things more or less noticeable too.
Yes, I’ve found that too. For me, neck width and profile are noticeable and very important, fret size and fingerboard radius noticeable but not important, and scale length barely noticeable and not important at all. For other people, different things matter and don’t matter.Dave_Mc said:Yeah exactly. Some people notice and care, some notice and don't care and some just don't notice at all! I'm not as bad as I was, but I still notice. Funnily enough, I don't notice scale length differences as much, and some of the people I've talked to online who didn't notice nut width differences very much did notice scale length differences! Not sure if there's a correlation there or not...
Plus as people said above, other neck specs can make things more or less noticeable too.
Except that I once played a Tele with a 24-3/4” scale neck, that felt completely wrong. I have no idea why, when I don’t notice the scale length difference between a Tele and a Les Paul.
As mentioned in one of the other similar ish threads, I moved from a Taylor (1 11/16) to a 45mm and was really surprised at how much a difference was. Bearing in mind I have no difficulty with a much wider classical neck, this seemed odd. So i presume it is slightly different string spacing and neck profile too
The only consistent problem I have is if the nut width has a knock-on effect - making the top E string too close to the edge of the fingerboard. Then, my sloppy technique can cause a fleshy part of my left hand to damp the open E.
The new-to-me 000-15M has a 1 11/16 nut compared to the 1 23/32 on the Taylor GTe I have been playing for the last year, and I have had to make a conscious effort to improve.
Every little helps, as they say.
The new-to-me 000-15M has a 1 11/16 nut compared to the 1 23/32 on the Taylor GTe I have been playing for the last year, and I have had to make a conscious effort to improve.
Every little helps, as they say.
The combo of nut width and profile are important, shaping of fingerboard edges plays a part too as mentioned... but what often gets overlooked is string spacing at the nut.
I have two acoustics with 1 11/16 nuts - one with 1.48" spacing and one much tighter. The necks have pretty much the same profile yet they feel very different to play.
I always assumed that the "nut width" measurement was between the two e strings rather than the actual width of the neck at the nut, and that the strings would be spaced evenly. Is that not the case then? I've never measured it to find out.Cryptid said:The combo of nut width and profile are important, shaping of fingerboard edges plays a part too as mentioned... but what often gets overlooked is string spacing at the nut.I have two acoustics with 1 11/16 nuts - one with 1.48" spacing and one much tighter. The necks have pretty much the same profile yet they feel very different to play.
DartmoorHedgehog said:I always assumed that the "nut width" measurement was between the two e strings rather than the actual width of the neck at the nut, and that the strings would be spaced evenly. Is that not the case then? I've never measured it to find out.Cryptid said:The combo of nut width and profile are important, shaping of fingerboard edges plays a part too as mentioned... but what often gets overlooked is string spacing at the nut.I have two acoustics with 1 11/16 nuts - one with 1.48" spacing and one much tighter. The necks have pretty much the same profile yet they feel very different to play.
It's usually the full width of the neck at the nut that's measured, the actual useful playing width and the string spacing within that can vary considerably
Well I never knew that - the distance between the e strings would make more sense surely? My acoustic claims to be 43mm - I'll have to measure it tonight now, I'm intrigued...MartinB said:DartmoorHedgehog said:I always assumed that the "nut width" measurement was between the two e strings rather than the actual width of the neck at the nut, and that the strings would be spaced evenly. Is that not the case then? I've never measured it to find out.Cryptid said:The combo of nut width and profile are important, shaping of fingerboard edges plays a part too as mentioned... but what often gets overlooked is string spacing at the nut.I have two acoustics with 1 11/16 nuts - one with 1.48" spacing and one much tighter. The necks have pretty much the same profile yet they feel very different to play.
It's usually the full width of the neck at the nut that's measured, the actual useful playing width and the string spacing within that can vary considerably
Can depend upon your style of playing, for instance if you use your thump to wrap around the top edge of the neck to fret the low E string.DartmoorHedgehog said:Well I never knew that - the distance between the e strings would make more sense surely? My acoustic claims to be 43mm - I'll have to measure it tonight now, I'm intrigued...
DartmoorHedgehog said:Well I never knew that - the distance between the e strings would make more sense surely? My acoustic claims to be 43mm - I'll have to measure it tonight now, I'm intrigued...MartinB said:DartmoorHedgehog said:I always assumed that the "nut width" measurement was between the two e strings rather than the actual width of the neck at the nut, and that the strings would be spaced evenly. Is that not the case then? I've never measured it to find out.Cryptid said:The combo of nut width and profile are important, shaping of fingerboard edges plays a part too as mentioned... but what often gets overlooked is string spacing at the nut.I have two acoustics with 1 11/16 nuts - one with 1.48" spacing and one much tighter. The necks have pretty much the same profile yet they feel very different to play.
It's usually the full width of the neck at the nut that's measured, the actual useful playing width and the string spacing within that can vary considerably
Both nut width and string spacing are useful as neither tell the whole story. You could have a 55mm nut but with 43mm string spacing - a ridiculous example I admit but if you just had the string spacing it wouldn’t give you much of an idea.
But nut width is a constant and will allow any string spacing (up to the nut width) that you like albeit at the expense of a new nut.
Ah OK, so the 43mm could actually be between the strings but I'd possibly got that confused with what people call "nut width". My guitar says "nut width 43mm" in the spec so I'll measure it tonight and see what that actually relates to.drofluf said:DartmoorHedgehog said:Well I never knew that - the distance between the e strings would make more sense surely? My acoustic claims to be 43mm - I'll have to measure it tonight now, I'm intrigued...MartinB said:DartmoorHedgehog said:I always assumed that the "nut width" measurement was between the two e strings rather than the actual width of the neck at the nut, and that the strings would be spaced evenly. Is that not the case then? I've never measured it to find out.Cryptid said:The combo of nut width and profile are important, shaping of fingerboard edges plays a part too as mentioned... but what often gets overlooked is string spacing at the nut.I have two acoustics with 1 11/16 nuts - one with 1.48" spacing and one much tighter. The necks have pretty much the same profile yet they feel very different to play.
It's usually the full width of the neck at the nut that's measured, the actual useful playing width and the string spacing within that can vary considerablyBoth nut width and string spacing are useful as neither tell the whole story. You could have a 55mm nut but with 43mm string spacing - a ridiculous example I admit but if you just had the string spacing it wouldn’t give you much of an idea.But nut width is a constant and will allow any string spacing (up to the nut width) that you like albeit at the expense of a new nut.
nut width 43mm will be the width of the nut and in this case the distance between the strings will be less than 43mm.
This. Nut width is the actual width of the nut - or the fingerboard right against it, if the nut isn't straight-ended. String spacing at the nut is usually about 6mm less than this, give or take half a mm.kmajor said:nut width 43mm will be the width of the nut and in this case the distance between the strings will be less than 43mm.
eg my three acoustics:
1 - nut width 43.5mm, string spacing 37mm.
2 - nut width 45.5mm, string spacing 39mm.
3 - nut width 44mm, string spacing 38.5mm.
Before I measured it I would have said guitar 3 had a very slightly narrower neck than guitar 1, but it's wider in both measurements - I now think it must be because the strings are closer to the edges.
I've actually just played them all back to back and it's quite remarkable - 3 definitely feels like a slightly smaller neck than 1... but hold them together face to face with the nuts touching and it's absolutely clear that 3 is wider, especially the string spacing.
Yes thanks folks - I'll measure it later to prove the point but I'm sure you're right. I'd just always thought "nut width" meant across the strings and never questioned it - I'm happy to be wrong and learn something :)
Regardless of how it's measured, I still stick by my original statement that I couldn't tell a 1mm difference by just playing it.
Regardless of how it's measured, I still stick by my original statement that I couldn't tell a 1mm difference by just playing it.
I have acoustics in both 1 11/16" and 1 3/4" and if I don't switch between them regularly my fingers get confused. Both necks are a similar shape, I wish the nuts were the same width.
Having thought that I could, I've just proved conclusively that I can't :). Not because I can't feel a difference, but because there's clearly something more important - profile or string spacing to the edges, I suspect - which is enough to trick my hand into feeling the 'wrong' difference.DartmoorHedgehog said:
Regardless of how it's measured, I still stick by my original statement that I couldn't tell a 1mm difference by just playing it.
Wow I'm near enough exactly the same! Maybe there is a correlation...ICBM said:Yes, I’ve found that too. For me, neck width and profile are noticeable and very important, fret size and fingerboard radius noticeable but not important, and scale length barely noticeable and not important at all. For other people, different things matter and don’t matter.Dave_Mc said:Yeah exactly. Some people notice and care, some notice and don't care and some just don't notice at all! I'm not as bad as I was, but I still notice. Funnily enough, I don't notice scale length differences as much, and some of the people I've talked to online who didn't notice nut width differences very much did notice scale length differences! Not sure if there's a correlation there or not...
Plus as people said above, other neck specs can make things more or less noticeable too.
Except that I once played a Tele with a 24-3/4” scale neck, that felt completely wrong. I have no idea why, when I don’t notice the scale length difference between a Tele and a Les Paul.
I don't think I've tried a 24 3/4" Tele, or at least a single coil one. I tried that FMT humbucker one which I think is 24 3/4", but then it's more like a Gibson in a Tele shape... I didn't notice anything untoward with it IIRC.
Well, FWIW, I've measured my "43mm" guitar and that is indeed the width of the whole neck at the nut. String spacing is actually about 35mm. So I've been wrong all along :D 35mm sounds ridiculously narrow - I'm actually amazed it's really only that far between the e strings - I just believed it was 43 and never doubted it!
The 12-string is 50mm nut, 44mm across strings. That does feel wide.
Is it a Yamaha?DartmoorHedgehog said:
I've measured my "43mm" guitar and that is indeed the width of the whole neck at the nut. String spacing is actually about 35mm.
@ICBM Tanglewood
Checking my two;
Eastman E1OM;
total width 45mm, E-e just over 38mm
Gibson G45 Standard;
total width just over 43.5mm, E-e 37.5mm
Both are about as widely spaced as I would want to go, relative to where the bevel on the frets starts.
My current guitar has a nut width of 1 11/16" but have seen several others I like the look of with a nut width of 1 3/4". Would I be just causing a problem for myself.
I have a budget of circa 3K to spend, preferably on a used guitar, and don't want to make an expensive mistake and am not sure if spending a short time in a guitar shop would answer the question.