Nut Materials: Stone?

[Clicker]

You do not use the porous part of the bone for nut blanks. They need to come from large, dense bones. They do not float in water.
Clicker, bone is chosen because it works and works well. It will last for decades. It tends to get high marks for tone and it is easy to work with. If the stone you choose will do all that it too will be a good choice.

I believe you. I just question the motives behind the modern day methods. If bone was used a few hundred years ago just because it was handy, and workable with iron tools, who is to say that given the CAD applications coupled with super-hard tooling, there couldn't be a 'better" material out there somewhere right now. -Harry

[Clicker]

I have made guitar nuts out of several types of stone and crystal, (obsidian, polished granite, marble, quartz etc) and they all share one thing, they are incredibly hard to work.

Thanks pribar. I'm betting that flourite, is a good choice for all the right reasons. When the time comes I'm going for it. -Harry

[Clicker]

Sustain is the time it takes for the string to lose its energy - where does the energy go?
1 - into vibrations of the air, a.k.a. "sound"
2 - into heat, via damping materials

I'm going to differ somewhat with you on this. It's all energy being defined with frequencies we can hear and those we can not. Another thread, perhaps. -Harry

[Clicker]

I might guess that a tungsten nut would be a great experiment.

I thought about that too. Then there might be some chemical reaction with the metal in the strings which made me unthink about it. -Harry

[Clicker]

But back to the OP. Bone is inexpensive, easily worked, does the job well, lasts a long time, and is tried and true. Why use something else other than looks?

Thanks...glad you mentioned that. Knowing that bone actually looks like a sponge of sorts and is basically made up of calcium, it seems to me that it would not be conducive to the proper coupling of (some) neck to string frequencies. If a monolithic non-reactive, e.g., flourite, material exists, with the same workability, why NOT use it? That's all I'm asking.

-Harry

pic was borrowed form an osteoporosis website

[Clicker]

I'm also guessing that, whether brass, bone, corian, or whatever, it's good for the nut be softer than the string that it supports or you'll end up wearing thru strings pretty often - maybe weekly. Far more convenient to wear out the nut itself every three or five decades.

Why these materials are tried in the first place is a good thing too. Much of the success of any material though is determined by its profitability. The rogue luthiers which venture out now and then are the ones making all the difference. If they weren't there would only be a few companies making mandolins. Thanks. -Harry

[Clicker]

The brand I use from Masecraft works fine, pretty similar to bone and maybe a hair denser.

I should have figured you were there already Martin. Thanks. -Harry

[Clicker]

I am surprised that pearl nuts haven't been mentioned. Many top end mandolins use them. The main benefit that I see in bone is that it is more resistent to chipping on the outer edges; not that it is either better or worse than other materials such as pearl or stone.

I looked at pearl. I thought they might tend to fracture horizontally since the oyster builds the material in layers. That's why I settled on making this thread about plain old rock. I appreciate it Lefty... -Harry

[Clicker]

Another material would be carbon graphite but for some reason it is not used.

Hello Charles. Why isn't it you think? I ALSO believe that would be an excellent material. Silicon might be too but the expense... wow. -Harry

[sunburst]

Knowing that bone actually looks like a sponge of sorts and is basically made up of calcium, it seems to me that it would not be conducive to the proper coupling of (some) neck to string frequencies. If a monolithic non-reactive, e.g., flourite, material exists, with the same workability, why NOT use it? That's all I'm asking.

The nut stops the strings, string energy is "seen" by the instrument as a series of pulses, the bridge does almost all the work of converting the pulses into movement of the instrument (where sound comes from). If it looks like a sponge under magnification, it is still a solid stop for the end of the strings, and it still works fine for the job it does. If you want to use fluorite, have at it. it will probably sound as good as bone, and it may last as long.

The CF material we normally use is simply a bunch of thin carbon fibers held together in a mass of resin of some sort. I assume the presence of the fibers would make is tougher than the resin alone, the the main attribute of the material is it's stiffness, something that barely matters at all in a nut material.

[Clicker]

... but we have made nuts from corian, plastics, wood, and yes stone, ...

Hello mirwa. What stone? -Harry

[Clicker]

If your after sustain, then fit heavier tuner heads on, clamp a small piece of wood under the headstock, there are many ways to increase sustain, the nut IMO would be the least of all these, as the weight difference between each type is fairly negligible except for stone.

I guess I just worry than the wood couldn't be getting the lion's share of flex unless the nut was monolithic. -Harry

[Clicker]

I try to play by hitting very few open strings so why not make a nut out of stainless steel or whtever the frets are made out of, some people capo up a mandolin and that makes the fret act as a nut and I haven`t heard if that changes the sustain or sound....I know most guitars still sound as good capoed as they do uncapoed....I guess that would be much like a O fret....

Willie

I think Mr. Henze solved that issue by throwing his zero fretted wrench into the works. So, should capos be made of stone too? Nahhhh! That's DEFINATELY another thread. It's appreciated Willie. Thanks. -Harry

[Clicker]

The nut stops the strings,

I was believing that the nut is actually a bridge of sorts, which not only sets the scale length but the downward pressure on that bridge defers some absorption of energy (in the form of frequencies) into the neck. Not so?

string energy is "seen" by the instrument as a series of pulses, the bridge does almost all the work of converting the pulses into movement of the instrument (where sound comes from). If it looks like a sponge under magnification, it is still a solid stop for the end of the strings, and it still works fine for the job it does. If you want to use fluorite, have at it. it will probably sound as good as bone, and it may last as long.

Plus. it's waaaay purdier than bone...

[sunburst]

Plus. it's waaaay purdier than bone...

To each his own, I suppose. I just finished this one today, it's still on the bench, I cut it from a "dog bone" from a pet store, and I think it's right purdy!

[Pete Jenner]

Great Dane?

[Bertram Henze]

So, should capos be made of stone too? Nahhhh!

Let's start a neolithic thread! Yabbadabbadooo...

I was believing that the nut is actually a bridge of sorts, which not only sets the scale length but the downward pressure on that bridge defers some absorption of energy (in the form of frequencies) into the neck. Not so?

The vibration transferred at that end of the string (only the open string, mind you) rather belongs in the unwanted category, e.g. letting the strings between nut and tuners vibrate along at arbitrary frequencies. Therefore, a nut's intended function is to hold the strings in position rather than producing additional music with them, and it should not be too bridge-like for that reason.

[Pete Jenner]

I would have thought the ideal would be a zero fret.

[Bertram Henze]

I would have thought the ideal would be a zero fret.

Absolutely. My Fylde OM has one, and I would never again go without one. Or to put it in the words of Roger Bucknall of Fylde Guitars:

"I could never see the sense of "stopping" the string in one fashion for open strings, and in another fashion for fretted notes. Neither does it seem logical to use different materials for the two different situations."

Rely on nuts too much, and nuts is what you'll get.

[Pribar]

When all is said and done a nut is there to keep the strings at the proper height and spaced correctly, any other effect it has is so minor it is not worth mentioning, although there are people who will insist they can hear the difference .

[Pete Jenner]

Absolutely. My Fylde OM has one, and I would never again go without one. Or to put it in the words of Roger Bucknall of Fylde Guitars:

"I could never see the sense of "stopping" the string in one fashion for open strings, and in another fashion for fretted notes. Neither does it seem logical to use different materials for the two different situations."

Rely on nuts too much, and nuts is what you'll get.

Cool. Well after seeing the work of Brian Dean and following posts like this, my current build (#2) will incorporate a zero fret. I do love making bone nuts though.

[Clicker]

To each his own, I suppose. I just finished this one today, it's still on the bench, I cut it from a "dog bone" from a pet store, and I think it's right purdy!

Nice one John. -h

[sunburst]

I do love making bone nuts though.

What's your minimum order?
It's one of my most hated tasks, making bone nuts...

[Paul Hostetter]

I looked at pearl. I thought they might tend to fracture horizontally since the oyster builds the material in layers.

You obviously haven't seen any of the thousands of vintage Gibsons with pearl nuts—all their top-of-the-line instruments (the Style 4's before there was a Style 5, then the Style 5's, their top jazz guitars and primo flattops like the J-200s) had pearl nuts. I've also made dozens of them from scratch. It's sweet stuff, and only slightly problematic in terms of durability. Abalone has flaky layers, but if you're careful, that'll work too. But Byron's point about the fragility of pearl is a good one, though I don't see pearl nuts failing at a very notable rate. And there are a lot of them out there in service right now.

That's why I settled on making this thread about plain old rock.

Well, there are a lot of different things that qualify as "rock" and I see you've chosen to roll minerals up with them. Many "rocks" are too soft or problematic to even think about, a few might work, and most are simply too much trouble to work with. Bone rules for a reason.

The CF material we normally use is simply a bunch of thin carbon fibers held together in a mass of resin of some sort.

Epoxy, which is why it's not stable at high temperatures.

[Big Joe]

Most mandolin builders and players are trying to reduce sustain to achieve the "chop" we all love so much. We do a vibrato to achieve the same effect as long sustain. If you increase sustain you have a middy tone that becomes quite unpleasant. The nut and saddle material are chosen to be dense enough for longevity and function, but soft enough to reduce sustain. The more dense materials also have a tendency to make the instrument lose its bottom end and increase the brittleness of tone that makes it sound less dynamic than the materials most often used. On the other hand, if it is too soft it causes a muddy tone and loses volume.