Nut width - am I missing something?

Chalky

Imagine you're playing an open E chord, then you put your little finger down to play the D on the B string. If your fingers are fat and the nut/string spacing is narrow then you will find it hard. Typically a fat fingered player will mute the G or E strings as well, depending on which one sounds better. The teacher Fred Sokolow refers to it on a couple of his DVDs because he's got sausages for fingers. Seem to remember Redd Volkaert saying something similar.

rlw

GuitarZero said:

I think if you haven't tried them, you can't really understand it.  On paper it doesn't seem much.  In reality it's a massive difference.

I owned a nice Strat for a while but didn't get on with the width of the neck and my fingers kept sliding off both E strings.  Didn't care for the fretboard radius either but probably could cope better now - that curve probably added to the problem.

Also briefly had an Epi LP with the narrower nut, and was loaned an LP Special, also with the narrower nut.   Just sent back a 2015 LP Special too.  And of course, I started with a Dot so I am reasonably familiar with the different widths.  

I simply feel a bit more comfortable with that little extra at the sides and I'm fine on an acoustic.  I'm considering another later (2014) Epi Goldtop (well dark blue actually) but I'm hesitating over the nut width being too narrow.

Sassafras

I think the first guitar I had was an Eko 12 string and it took me ages to adapt to a normal 43mm nut width when I got a 6 string so I'd say the odd 1 or 2 mm makes a huge difference. I've got quite small hands and thin fingers and I still find it hard to play something like a Rickenbacker with a 41.4 mm nut width.

rlw

stickyfiddle said:

Chalky said:

Er, I said you potentially might find them unplayable. Guys with fat fingers can really struggle on 41mm - too difficult to get a single string down without fouling the strings on either side.

I don't buy this - a lot of "great" players have HUGE hands - Gilmour, Mayer, Hendrix, Zakk Wylde, Joe Walsh, BB King, Vai... It's not nut width that's the issue, it's practice and precision.

Sassafras said:

I think the first guitar I had was an Eko 12 string and it took me ages to adapt to a normal 43mm nut width when I got a 6 string so I'd say the odd 1 or 2 mm makes a huge difference. I've got quite small hands and thin fingers and I still find it hard to play something like a Rickenbacker with a 41.4 mm nut width.

I can't press straight down on the outer strings - it's always a little sideways - and I think that's why I find the narrower nuts harder to play.  Obviously it's a practice issue but why make life even harder............

Kuroblack

rlw;644441" said:

My point was, I suppose, do you really notice the extra 1.5mm per side that much?  Its a tiny amount - 1/16".

I don't think it's noticeable, not consciously anyway. It's a good question from the OP though, when I get home I'll check the LP, Strat and PRS for curiosity...

hywelg

46mm is very big. I started with Warmoth Superwide at 47.6 and then sanded down to my preferred 45.5-46mm. Thats because I have a large hand span. I am looking forward to trying a new LP but I suspect I wont like the autotuners or the way the nut is cut (I think the string spacing is near to normal so top abd bottom E's are further in from the edge).

Cant play a 41mm nut, 42 is problematic and 43 is OK'ish for me. 44.45 is nice but quite rare to find.

iseverynamegone

Think of it as nearly 10% difference . Then try wearing shoes 2 sizes too large or small .

rlw

iseverynamegone said:

Think of it as nearly 10% difference . Then try wearing shoes 2 sizes too large or small .

S'different though innit?  Shoes envelop the foot, a hand (sort of) envelops the neck - very different. And its actually 6.9767441%, not 10%, 43 - 46mm.

not_the_dj

Remember on the new Gibsons the string spacing is unchanged, it's just the nut and fingerboard/neck that's wider.

WezV

I was looking at one of the narrow necks I made at 40mm yesterday.  Its about 10 years old so I can't remember why I went that narrow, but I did notice the ends of the frets were less bevelled than other guitars from  that time.   The difference in bevel gives an extra 2mm of playable fret surface

 

 

rlw

not_the_dj said:

Remember on the new Gibsons the string spacing is unchanged, it's just the nut and fingerboard/neck that's wider.

My whole point - the strings are the same but you have a tiny bit - 1/16" each side - more room to manoeuvre on the outside.  Is it that significant really.

not_the_dj

rlw said:

not_the_dj said:

Remember on the new Gibsons the string spacing is unchanged, it's just the nut and fingerboard/neck that's wider.

My whole point - the strings are the same but you have a tiny bit - 1/16" each side - more room to manoeuvre on the outside.  Is it that significant really.

I tried one and instantly didn't like it. But I might be able to get used to it if I had one for a while. However I have other Gibsons with the older spec width so for me it is a deal breaker as swapping between them really does make it feel much much bigger than the numbers suggest. 

Lew