Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Why do fretboards narrow at the nut?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Herefordshire
    Posts
    81

    Default Why do fretboards narrow at the nut?

    I cant see a physics reason why the fretboard on virtually all stringed instruments (except possibly a classical guitar?) are narrower at the nut.
    Practically you need just as much room up there for finger access as you do lower down.
    Trying! (Apparently very trying...)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Little River, California
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jnorris235 View Post
    I cant see a physics reason why the fretboard on virtually all stringed instruments (except possibly a classical guitar?) are narrower at the nut.
    Practically you need just as much room up there for finger access as you do lower down.
    That is actually an interesting question. My first guess is that because the fret intervals become narrower at the upper ends, more space is needed to get your fingers to properly fret the notes. You need more room at the upper registers. Question: Do non-freted fingerboards (like a fretless bass) taper also?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Herefordshire
    Posts
    81

    Default

    I think violins do narrow, and are fretless.
    So you think it may be that the square area needed per fingertip may be the equation. Hmmm.
    Thinking...
    I can see the weight argument, but dont classical guitars narrow far far less - and I presumed this was for uniform access for plucking?
    Last edited by jnorris235; 12-08-2019 at 10:20 AM.
    Trying! (Apparently very trying...)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    939

    Default

    I own a lot classical guitars and all of them have a wider string spread at the bridge than the nut. For example, my Japanese made Hirade TH8SS is 52mm at the nut and 60mm at the bridge. My Spanish made Ramirez is 54mm at the nut and 64mm at the bridge! Classicals are designed for fingerpicking so you need extra room. On the other hand, instruments designed for flat picking—electric guitar—have a narrower spread at the bridge to facilitate jumping a pick from string to string. I think the other members are right also about players needing more room in the upper positions since the frets are closer together.
    Last edited by gochugogi; 12-08-2019 at 11:25 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Herefordshire
    Posts
    81

    Default

    It never occurred that the narrow nuts were designed for use with picks. That explains a lot. In our little town I havent been able to get to see a classical guitar, they just looked parallel sided fretboards. Ive actually been looking at a guitalele and a 45mm nut for 6 strings I find difficult to fingerpick. 52 and 54 sounds huge (from a ukulele players perspective). Thanks for your help.
    Trying! (Apparently very trying...)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Little River, California
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ubulele View Post
    the spacing you need for cleanly fretting is less than the spacing you need for cleanly plucking the strings with the fingers.
    I think this is probably the right answer. The weight thing not so much...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    244

    Default

    This is an interesting question.
    It is probably an evolutionary thing.
    For my age and exposure, I am a very poor guitarist (pathetic really), so I should not be preaching on good technique. However, most seasoned players have very specific likes for nut and fret board width and detest narrow or overly wide ones. Some get quite emotional over 1mm discrepancies. Very accomplished players seem to be able to use just the points of the finger tips regardless of position on the fret board, while others use a greater area of finger pad real estate, especially higher up the board. This requires an increased string spacing as fret spacing decreases in order to avoid the otherwise inevitably muted adjacent strings.
    I hope this makes sense.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    Posts
    2,949

    Default

    I'm not sure (I mean, I doubt) if weight was the original thought behind the tapering...but maybe it was a consideration.
    By original, i mean the Lyre > then oud, > which are the ancestors of the lute > then guitar.

    Another more simple and straightforward possibility.
    The farther away your hand is from the instrument body (which is usually the center of playing) , the more difficult to do accurate fingering becomes.
    Stretch out your arm all the way and air finger chords ...then do it imagining a wide fingerboard at the nut....

    Not such a problem on ukes, but it would be on longer instruments, including the violin (which isn't long but how its held dictates a taper is necessary.)
    So the tapering necks from the long stringed instruments of 2000-3000 years ago continues.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I always thought that the tapered neck introduced the proper amount of relief to eliminate string buzz.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    . I think a straight beam might put the relief higher up the fret board which would be less useful.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •