Just wondering what the luthiers here thought about using a zero fret. I know that not many basses have them, but they seem like a really good idea. Is there a reason they are not more widely used?

Michael Tobias already answered this question in this thread (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49703). What about the other luthiers?

Sorry to ask this but I really am an idiot:

I have always wondered what a zero fret is and i think I just figured it out. Is a zero fret when you use a fret in place of a nut so it is like fretting an open string on your bass? Sorry to make such an idiot of myself.

word

Originally posted by alx564
Sorry to ask this but I really am an idiot:

I have always wondered what a zero fret is and i think I just figured it out. Is a zero fret when you use a fret in place of a nut so it is like fretting an open string on your bass? Sorry to make such an idiot of myself.

Well you still use a nut but the the strings run over the zero fret right after the nut so that's where the contact is before the 1st fret. You still need the nut slots to hold the strings in place but it no longer serves as the last contact point between tuners and fingerboard.

brad cook

Thanks a lot for clearing that up for me.

There's no such thing as an open string on a bass with a zero fret. Amazing!

I've made a few, when the customer has requested it...
for a while, I also seriously considered going that route as standard ...as from my end it would eliminate the nut slotting, filing, etc. The nut then becomes just a side-to-side place holder for the strings..in fact it also can be eliminated if the end of the fretboard is designed with slots or holes...

DAve P.

Seems like most of you think a zero-fret works pretty well. Now I must ask why is it not more widely used?

Good question!

Originally posted by slam
Seems like most of you think a zero-fret works pretty well. Now I must ask why is it not more widely used? It costs a cent or two more. And Leo, the one that made solid guitars available to the people, saved on every feature. And susequent fabricators went his way....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Suburban
It costs a cent or two more. And Leo, the one that made solid guitars available to the people, saved on every feature. And susequent fabricators went his way....:rolleyes:

I don't think it's cheaper to use a nut..just the opposite.
The bigger problem is for mass production...using a zero fret is a lot more unforgiving ...a keeping the strings a little higher with a nut can hide a multitude of sins. In mass produced guitars and basses, they don't usually do any fretwork (levelling & re-crowning) beyond the installation..too time consuming & costly (manpower)..

DAve p.

Dave,

A while back I was reading this thread (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35681&perpage=20&highlight=zero%20fret&pagenumber=2) and Brooks said:

During our discussions, I changed a few things. Most radical is the body shape - now it's a cross between my Rick Turner Electroline and a Ritter ( I REALLY like those). I also added 0 fret (against Dave's advice), but I like those...
Stay tuned!

Do you still advise against the zero fret and why or was that just for this specific bass?

brad cook

I didn't so much "advise against it" as suggest at the time that it didn't give all that much advantage/difference for the player compared to using a nut.

DAve P.

DP why did you decide not to make a zero fret standard on your basses?

I'm still thinking about it, and working out the details of my own design/implementation of it.
I think I may also want a little more feedback from players on why some of them might prefer a nut .

DAve P.

personally dave... Im looking forward to your designs on eliminating the nut...

sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't

Originally posted by DP Custom


I don't think it's cheaper to use a nut..just the opposite.
The bigger problem is for mass production...using a zero fret is a lot more unforgiving ...a keeping the strings a little higher with a nut can hide a multitude of sins. In mass produced guitars and basses, they don't usually do any fretwork (levelling & re-crowning) beyond the installation..too time consuming & costly (manpower)..

DAve p. Good point, Dave. If you have a nut that is cut too high (is higher than a fret would be), it raises the strings well above the frets. Then when someone picks it up in a music store, at least the open strings won't buzz, no matter how crappy the fret job may be. (Unless the bridge is ridiculously low, of course.)

DP-

Could you make it standard to have a choice between zero fret, or nut? That way, people could choose what they want, without having to worry about added cost of a non-standard part.

Unless you don't charge more for a zero fret...

I think one major pro of having a nut is that its replaceable...

Yes, but how often do you replace your frets?

frets are replaceable too, and (i would think), a lot less likely to break than a nut...

i had a zero-fret equipped bass that saw heavy use with stainless steel round-wounds for ten years, and after all that time, the wear on the zero fret was (for lack of a better word) "zero"...



(this one...)

http://rockandroll.dns2go.com/walker/images/bebb1.JPG

I would also guess that one issue is the cost. Replacing a nut costs next to nothing. But replacing frets is much more expensive. I don't think I've ever heard of someone replacing just one fret so if you have lots a fret wear or damage then you gotta spend a lot more money to have them replaced. But I guess its just a matter of preference and how much maintainence and time you want to put into your bass.

I really don't think instrument makers really care whether it's going to cost more one way or the other way to replace it. First, it's not their problem, and second, most frets and nuts never get replaced. I imagine that if you compared the number of instruments sold to the number of fret or nut replacements done by luthiers or repair people, it would be at least a thousand to one.

I think the reason has got to be either a) cheaper to manufacture, b) easier to sell because it's what people expect to see, or c) you can leave the nut cut high so when it's on the rack in the store, the open strings don't buzz.

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. I was stating a reason why some players may not like a zero fret. I know that replacing frets and such is not the manufacturers problem. I was making more of a reference to rockandroller's comment about how frets are replacable.

Sorry about that.

Oh., please don't apologise. I was just looking from a different viewpoint- not trying to criticize.