pearl peg head nut v bone

[KitLarson]

Hi not to familiiar with pearl v bone peg head nut,bone louder? dc:mandosmiley:

[Paul Hostetter]

It's more about durability and bling than anything else. Pearl is hard on tools and its dust is somewhat nasty. It's definitely a step up from bone, but it's a lot of work and expense. In the Good Old Days, Gibson reserved it for their top of the line models.

[Hans]

The answer is no. Paul is right, it's just bling, it's harder to work without cracking, and the dust is not good for human life. Cost is 10 bucks a nut, and it's not unusual crack or chip them necessitating starting over. I don't use them except on my most expensive F5C.

[250sc]

Hans and Paul,

Do any of you feel that the nut material makes a noticable difference in the sound of the instrument when fretting?

[evanreilly]

I am going to toss in my fave material for nuts; Fossil Ivory.
I have several FI nuts on mandolins and I think [subjective mode] it is sonically the best material [/subjective mode]. It also has great color options, to match any finish.
And a lot easier to work than pearl, without the noxious narceous dust!

[Paul Hostetter]

Do any of you feel that the nut material makes a noticeable difference in the sound of the instrument when fretting?

Infinitesimal, and who just sits around listening to open strings, anyway?

FI can be great, but a lot of it is soft and chalky and quite a waste of time and energy. Real bone is much more consistent and reliable.

[250sc]

I've heard claims that people can even hear the difference with a bone nut when strings are fretted. LOL. I want proof.

[Big Joe]

I prefer Fossil Ivory most, bone second. I am not a fan of pearl nuts. I don't think they add anything, and really don't always look as good. Pearl is not fun to work with and the dust is very bad for people, but even if it were not for that I have never been a fan of the pearl. It works well but I don't like it tonally open or closed fret position compared to bone or ivory. Ivory, in my opinon sounds best.

If you can't hear the difference it does not matter one way or the other. Some of us can and it matters to us.

[MikeEdgerton]

How does a nut affect a closed position tone? Somebody enlighten me. Once that fret makes contact with the string the nut is removed from the process is it not?

[Tim2723]

Inasmuch as the set up of the instrument can positively affect tone and playability in open and stopped positions, then changing the nut may change the set up in the process. If that's the case then yes, changing the nut may improve the sound of stopped strings.

The real problem as I see it is that the evidence is entirely anecdotal and always occurs in one direction. There are countless reports of the tone improving with a new nut material, but I have never read an account of someone changing the nut, observing that change in a quantifiable way, and then putting the old nut back to see if the tone reverts to its former state and measuring that.

[Salty Dog]

I agree with Big Joe - I have had pearl and bone nuts and 1) the pearl nut only looks better if the viewing angle is right, which it ususlly isn't, and 2) there really isn't a difference in tone. It's a bling thing. The pearl is more expensive and difficult to work with - I requested BRW#61 with a pearl nut and Ben Wilcox sent a note asking if bone was OK as he had broken all the pearl nut blanks he had in the shop. I agreed to bone and I am glad I did. I really feel that the important factor in tone relating to the nut is how well the nut fits the strings. People can talk about fossil ivory, etc., but I think the more expensive the nut material, the more selective the installer, so the end justifies the means. I have also heard that pearl dust is very dangerous to breathe, but Dave Nichols of Custom Inlay says it is only calcuim; has worked with pearl inlay for years, and says he has never worn a mask. I am only suggesting that there are differing opinions as to the toxicity of pearl dust.

[MikeEdgerton]

Inasmuch as the set up of the instrument can positively affect tone and playability in open and stopped positions, then changing the nut may change the set up in the process....

That doesn't even remotely appear to be a valid answer.

Of course setup can change things, so can strings and a pick.

Given equal setup between two mandolins that are identical, how does the tone of a note on a mandolin with a pearl nut differ in sound from a bone nut when the string has been fretted at the fifth fret and the nut is no longer part of the termination of the string?

[MikeEdgerton]

...I am only suggesting that there are differing opinions as to the toxicity of pearl dust.

Dave is a friend and a knowledgable guy but breathing any solid particle is bad obviously. There is a message someplace here on the cafe where someone traces this back to the fact that they used arsenic (I think) in the old days to treat the pearl shell that was used in making shirt buttons and that the toxicity of old isn't the same these days. I'll see if I can find it.

Here it is (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showpost.php?p=285294&postcount=26).

[Tim2723]

That doesn't even remotely appear to be a valid answer.

Of course setup can change things, so can strings and a pick.

Given equal setup between two mandolins that are identical, how does the tone of a note on a mandolin with a pearl nut differ in sound from a bone nut when the string has been fretted at the fifth fret and the nut is no longer part of the termination of the string?


What I was trying to say is that in the process of replacing the nut, other improvements might end up being made that could improve the overall playability of the instrument (just having a nut that's correctly adjusted is an improvement). I'm not saying it's true; actually it's admittedly a stretch, but it's the only thing I've ever come up with that could even remotely explain why changing a nut could affect the stopped tone. If the mandolin ends up playing better, your tone might improve. As soon as you start comparing two or more mandolins though, all bets are off for me.

[Bill Baldock]

Only the primary frequency of the string's vibration is chosen by which fret you put your finger behind. The harmonics, overtones and resonant frequency of the instrument or parts of the instrument are affected to one degree or another by all things attached to the instrument. Two sets of tuners of equal weight, one of steel and one of brass, will change the sound. The nut material, be it bone, pearl, ivory, ebony, maple, pine or rubber, is going to change the sound. The glue used to put it in, is going to change the sound. How much of that is perceptible, or if it matters depends on who or what is listening.

[MikeEdgerton]

I don't buy the fact that something as small as a nut can vary the sound that way when it's not part of the immediate process. If the weight of the nut was the same it would have the same effect bone or pearl. In this scenerio the tuner buttons and the strap could affect the sound as well, I just don't buy it.

[Paul Hostetter]

There is a message someplace here on the cafe where someone traces this back to the fact that they used arsenic (I think) in the old days to treat the pearl shell that was used in making shirt buttons and that the toxicity of old isn't the same these days. I'll see if I can find it.

Here it is (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showpost.php?p=285294&postcount=26).

There it wasn't—that post is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Freshwater river pearl was never used in instruments, and the entire pearl button industry vanished by 1900, thanks to the depletion of the clams, and because plastic buttons filled the commercial niche. The pearl used in instrument decoration is different stuff.

The pathology of why the dust is bad for you is more complicated that simply labeling it as an irritant like any dust, because it (CaCO3 in dust form) chemically reacts with water (your lungs and nasal passages are wet) to form quicklime, which burns those tissues.

Anecdotes about individuals who have never worn a mask and never had problems are akin to anecdotes about people who smoked cigarettes until they were 100 years old.

[Big Joe]

Mike...if you can't tell the difference then it does not matter to you. Many can and it makes a difference to them. I can easily tell a difference in pearl, bone, or ivory. As Bill said above, it affects the harmonics. To me the pearl has a more brittle tone and emphasizes the higher frequencies, which I don't think needs emphasizing on most mandolins. If you have a weak E string it may help. Bone takes a bit of the brittleness out of the tone and gives less emphasis on the higher frequencies. Ivory is just a bit softer tonally in many cases.

I have experimented with a number of mandolins with nut choices and have developed my preferences on those experiments. On any mandolin I have tried I have come away with the same conclusion. I have started with pearl, switched to bone, back to pearl, then ivory, then back to pearl and or bone and have done that on a large enough sample to know what to expect the outcome to be on a particular mandolin. It makes a difference not only in the open positions, but all the way up and down the fingerboard whether playing single line or full chords.

Like so many things on an instrument, it all goes together to make the whole. That goes for tuner selection, tailpiece selection, bridge selection, all go towards the final outcome. What is best is dependent upon what one wants as the end result. The first thing is to find out what someone wants tonally and get as good a description as possible. Then one can tailor the different items in the chain to achieve as close as possible... or as close as that instrument can come... to what the person wants. It is a combination of so many things. Some of them are easy to understand, like wood material or bracing, but many others may not seem as easy to understand but play an important role as well. Often a mandolin of reasonable quality can become very good with the right combination of parts and set up.

[MikeEdgerton]

And here (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23270) is the thread that (same one actually) that discusses how much you have to heat it to become quicklime so that theory is questionable as well.

[MikeEdgerton]

Joe, All I'm asking for is some sort of reference that might show that to be valid. You don't have any other than "If I can't hear the difference". I accept the fact that pearl and bone could sound different on an open note. I just don't see how it enters the picture (other than the mass of the object) on a fretted note. The answer I'm seeing here is that it does because someone thinks it does, not because it actually does.

[250sc]

Smoke and mirrors. I have yet to see a blind tester differentiate between nut materials on a fretted string.

[Tim2723]

There will always be those willing to pay $5 to see the face of Elvis in a potato chip, and there always will be those willing to charge $5 a head to see it. If you like it and it's important enough to you, then it's worth it. And as long as you say it's only a potato chip that looks like Elvis, then you haven't hurt anyone.

[Paul Hostetter]

http://dearfabulous.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/princess_pea.jpg

[Mike Bunting]

Paul, I understand the density can vary in a single piece of pearl or bone and a "soft" spot can affect the quality of the nut. Is this fairly uncommon and not much of an issue or not. Apart from aesthetic reasons, is a synthetic material such as TUSQ any better or worse than bone or pearl? Thanks
P.S. I wonder what a nut made of the Blue Chip material might be like. (Besides being brown :) )

[Paul Hostetter]

Mike - I'm going to stick to safe ground by repeating my primary concern with practical considerations.

Good bone (which is not at all hard to get) is the most consistent and reliable nut material. It’s strong and durable, strings don’t slice their way through it like they often do with ivory and synthetics and some fossil ivory, or stick to it like they do with elephant ivory, which I consider too soft and rubbery for steel strings. It’s a natural material, so of course there’s still some variability. The commercial bleached stuff is softer than the unbleached, which I prefer.

That said, my thoughts about other qualities of typical nut materials might be shown in what I do with routine new Martin guitar setups: throw away the Tusq saddle and replace it with bone, but leave the synthetic nut. The saddle material really makes a difference to the sound, this is really obvious. But I don't think the nut material is that big deal at all, in terms of sound. OK, Tusq isn’t quite as good at carrying vibrations as is bone, but there are too many other things that affect the sound in much more profound ways than how it might act as a nut material.

Back to practicality: synthetic nuts are more fragile, they chip and lose outside edges rather easily, and when that happens, I make a bone replacement.

I’ve made nuts out of all sorts of things, from the sublime to the ridiculous: home harvested and prepared animal bone, commercial bleached bone, “fossil ivory,” whatever that is, mother of pearl, abalone, elephant ivory, ebony and other hardwoods, Bakelite, aluminum, stainless, brass and bronze, coral, nephrite, jade, agate, rose quartz, you name it. I don’t think some of these are desirable at all, but you don’t know how they work unless you try them.

Any improperly cut nut slot is going to cause trouble, practically and audially, and a lot of people tend to confuse materials vs. bad craftsmanship. But some materials have real practical drawbacks. Ivory and ebony are great with gut or nylon strings, but really insufficient for steel. Some materials function well, but are more trouble to work with than they are worth. Or they just look stupid. But the big one for me is how well they perform on a practical level. And bone is at the top of my list, and nearly everyone else’s. Good fossil ivory is really nice, I also love its look, but it’s way less consistent, as I already mentioned. Pearl is nice, it’s probably the best in terms of its low coefficient of friction, but I rarely go to the trouble unless it’s a fancy instrument or a restoration.

[Mike Bunting]

Thanks.

[SternART]

. The saddle material really makes a difference to the sound, this is really obvious. But I don't think the nut material is that big deal at all, in terms of sound. .

Now you're talking...........add a strip of bone or fossil ivory to the saddle and I've experienced a much bigger change in tone than varying the nut material.

[Bill Baldock]

I'm new here, have we argued about hot hide glue yet. That's a good one too.:))

[MikeEdgerton]

Hide glue? Dozens, maybe hundreds of times.

[Paul Hostetter]

Makes really lousy nuts.

[Big Joe]

I agree with Paul. It makes poor nuts, but if you dry it carefully it can make pretty good chips! Sorry Bill, couldn't resist.

[Big Joe]

For those of you who don't know Bill Baldock, he is a great musician, repairman, and an incredible shooter with a handgun as well. He is a good friend and knows what he is saying. Welcome aboard, Bill!

[JEStanek]

I haven't seen it thrown into the mix but some folks prefer a zero fret to give a uniform sound between open and fretted strings.

Jamie

[Paul Hostetter]

I haven't seen it thrown into the mix but some folks prefer a zero fret to give a uniform sound between open and fretted strings.

Good thought. I'm not sure most people who have them prefer them for the sound so much as they're what came on instruments they like. I love zero frets for their simplicity but I'd consider them a real hard sell for most of the mandolin crowd.

And then there's the pesky issue of having the zero fret being taller than any of the others, a bizarre commonplace, which makes the instruments harder to play and screws up the intonation. Ugh, a slippery slope! Almost as bad as a hide glue nut.

[man-don-lin]

Sound aside, the nut pearl nut on the mandolin I use is smoothest I've ever owned. I never have trouble with stings hanging-up in the nut. I wasn't looking for it but I could tell a difference from the first time I tuned with the pearl nut. I was really surprised with the quality.

[frankenstein]

I consider this to be a well cut bone nut, it's a John Walker guitar. sorry 'bout the bad pic but you get the idea. Angled slots, do mando builders do this or think it's a good idea ? pearl versus bone? up to the player i guess..

[Big Joe]

There are a couple of nuts available for guitars and basses. The Earvana is pretty cool and I've installed several of them. I have one on my Strat and love it. It does make a difference and we have installed them for a few artists who are very demanding of the intonation. We also do the Buzz Feinten system, but we have not done as many of them. It is similar, but a bit different. It should be a bit more exact though a bit more work for the install.

As we have time we would like to help develop a nut for one of the above systems for the mandolin. I think it would really help eliminate a lot of the problems with intonation we all feel and get frustrated with but have to live with. Working with a nut and saddle together to get the closest thing to perfect for each instrument would be a great thing for the mandolin community. Like all things, it is just a matter of time to invest to get the goal we want.

[Paul Hostetter]

Angling slots is essential no matter what the nut material, but my slots aren't just angled, the ramp up to the critical point of contact is shaped like the inside of a bell of a horn, so there's no multiplicity of contact points, no unnecessary friction.

http://www.lutherie.net/picard.horn.3.jpg

I go into some detail about it here: http://www.lutherie.net/nuts.html

I also feel it's essential to have no nut material above the halfway point of the string diameter—any of them, including the trebles—and that the slot really be shaped to fit the diameter of the string:

http://www.lutherie.net/nutslot6.jpg