So why does PRS insist on...

[Chris Scott]

...using nuts with such a deep plunge on the slots?

I've thought about it on and off for quite a while, and have yet to come up with a good reason, given that from a playability/maintenance standpoint it makes no sense at all, and is often just a pita - use the same string gauge forever, ok I guess you're good, but change up or down, repair someone's back-angling on a slot or 6 and it's a decidedly different story.

F or G-style instruments, fanned or straight-pull head-stock...from my pov as a tech, a standard depth plunge on the string slots is just fine.

 

[bojocatkite]

Always wondered the same, and it's so ugly...

 

[walterw]

since PRS guitars basically don't have one square inch that wasn't deliberately designed, i've wondered if it was maybe a thing to keep the string from falling out of the slot on hard trem dives, but yeah; ugly and hard to control a nut file in

 

[Multi Angle Vise]

...to keep the string from falling out of the slot on hard trem dives...

Yes, I remember reading the same, considered more important given headstock angle is ~10° (cf. Gibson ~18°), but I can't find a reference.

Considering the amount of thought given to nut materials, gluing in after finishing, etc. I also don't think it's accidental. I like it, I have a guitar with strings that used to fall out on a dive bomb, but taller nut fixed that, it just makes sense. PRS was trying to make a six screw TREMOLO (Motörhead lamp illuminates the darkened sky) that mostly works, so straight pull, shallow headstock angle, hard slippery nut with deep slots, notched bridge screws etc.

 

[jvin248]

.

No matter if you have a shallow or deep slot, you need to file it out fatter for bigger strings.

I never understood the need to only have slots just deep enough for the strings to sit proud.

They are slots to retain the strings. As long as they are the right height to the first fret and angled back so you don't get any sitar sounds what's the problem?

I have also come to appreciate a zero nut on a couple of guitars. Stainless zero nut and the problem of nut wear disappears and you get all the benefits of a perfect setup. No messing around with filing a nut to the correct height.

.

 

[walterw]

I never understood the need to only have slots just deep enough for the strings to sit proud.

They are slots to retain the strings. As long as they are the right height to the first fret and angled back so you don't get any sitar sounds what's the problem?

mostly cosmetic frankly, but it is much easier to file a slot slightly wider by rocking the file side to side if that slot is not super-deep

 

[Serious Poo]

Wow, I simply have never considered nut height as something to worry about in my 30+ years of playing guitar. I’ve got to be doing something wrong.

 

[bluesky636]

...using nuts with such a deep plunge on the slots?

I've thought about it on and off for quite a while, and have yet to come up with a good reason, given that from a playability/maintenance standpoint it makes no sense at all, and is often just a pita - use the same string gauge forever, ok I guess you're good, but change up or down, repair someone's back-angling on a slot or 6 and it's a decidedly different story.

F or G-style instruments, fanned or straight-pull head-stock...from my pov as a tech, a standard depth plunge on the string slots is just fine.

Maybe you should contact Paul Reed Smith and tell him he has been designing all his guitars wrong. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear from you.

 

[Hoodoo Man]

...using nuts with such a deep plunge on the slots?

I've thought about it on and off for quite a while, and have yet to come up with a good reason, given that from a playability/maintenance standpoint it makes no sense at all, and is often just a pita - use the same string gauge forever, ok I guess you're good, but change up or down, repair someone's back-angling on a slot or 6 and it's a decidedly different story.

F or G-style instruments, fanned or straight-pull head-stock...from my pov as a tech, a standard depth plunge on the string slots is just fine.

Because it's easier to mass produce while keeping a consistent look.

 

[Chris Scott]

Because it's easier to mass produce while keeping a consistent look.

Makes sense...gonna have to let that one soak in a while though.

I'm not one to cast aspersions, but the clear impediment to maintenance alone has always stuck in my craw. In the end, my opinion matters not...

 

[Chris Scott]

Maybe you should contact Paul Reed Smith and tell him he has been designing all his guitars wrong. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear from you.

Sounds like a plan...gonna git right on that.

 

[bob-i]

When I first learned to make a nut the luthier who was teaching me had me carve the nut almost exactly like PRS carves them, and this was in maybe 1975, long before PRS. He felt it was the correct way, deep and wide slots. It’s worked for me.