Rick 12-string nut vs. Arnquist nut vs. 660/12 nut

milo · Post by **milo** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:35 pm

I've had a couple of Rick 360/12s in the past as well as currently owning a 450/12 and so far I've liked my 450/12 the best. I just picked up a one year old 660/12 which is a great guitar but the nut, or more accurately, the string spacing is bugging me a bit.

I knew that the nut/neck was wider than the standard models and didn't think I would have any problem with it, but the spacing between the octave strings is also wider than on my 450/12. I'm having a harder time getting clean notes out of some the pairings because I've trained my fingers to play on the tips with the 450/12. Is this something that has changed across the board with all of their 12-strings or is it unique to the 660/12?

Does anyone know if Mark changes the string spacing of the pairs when he makes his "wider" nuts for the standard 12-strings or has anybody had a new nut for a 660/12 made that puts the string pairs closer to each other like on the other models? Do you think I would have to have the spacing altered at the saddle if I did this, too? It doesn't look like there's much room to play with string pair spacing on the 12-saddle bridge.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:27 pm

Jeff, email Mark and ask him your questions.

[email protected]

qmoder · Post by **qmoder** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:06 am

The nut that Mark was using was the 330 nut. The new Ric 360's and such are susposed to be using the 330 nut now. So unless you have and older model Ric you already have it.

milo · Post by **milo** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:13 am

I realize that's what Mark accomplishes with his mods to the 360/12, my problem is slightly different.

I bought a 660/12 that already has a wider nut width but what I noticed with this guitar is that the distance between strings within a pairing (G/G for example) has been increased compared to my 450/12 meaning my fingers have to be fatter to press down each pair and that there is less of a gap between each course of strings. My 450/12 has about .07-.08 inches between strings within a pair and the 660/12 has over .125" on some of the pairs.

I was wondering if this was unique to the 660/12, something that only the newer 660/12s had, or if it was a change across the board.

I've checked pictures of older 660/12s and TP signature models and the octave strings seem to be spaced tighter than mine leaving more gap between each pair of strings.

I've already talked to Mark and although he didn't mention the 660/12s specifically he was nice enough to send me his specs for the distances between octave strings and how he determines the spacing between each pair of strings. I've also got three nut blanks coming from him so I can give this a shot myself before spending $80 to ship the guitar cross-country to have him do the work.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:43 am

Grover Jackson and I thought this out quite a few years ago now and we changed the string spacing based on some computer modeling we did.

Other people base their string spacing on the center to center distance between strings without regard to their diameter. We threw that concept out early on because obviously the gauge of the string plays a huge factor in the spacing equation. We looked instead to the space between the edge of the strings and calculated the maximum helix that each individual string would vibrate with slighter greater than average playing force. We then brought the edges of those helixes together to determine the pair string spacing.

For the inter-pair spacing we again looked at the outer edge of each string pair's helical path and used those edges to establish an equidistant spacing across the fingerboard.

Our opinion is that this is a more enlightened approach to nut layout but of course whatever feels good to you personally is the best design for you.

milo · Post by **milo** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:16 am

Thanks John.
I'm not complaining, just curious. I know that you can't please all the people all the time....

I have the TP signature model poster on a wall in the music room and noticed that the spacing looked quite a bit different.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:57 am

You asked specifially about the 660/12 string nut but I should mention that within the last year we also switched over to using the 330/12 nut designed for no binding even on guitars like the 360/12 which do have binding. Previously we though it poor practice to include the bound area as part of the playing surface but so many people were making modifications and doing it anyway, we followed suit.

Only time will tell if fingerboard wear on the neck binding becomes an issue; if it does, we'll say "we told you so"!

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:20 pm

John, while we're on the subject(sort of)do you have the string spacing specs on the 4003/8 bass?

bill_yantz · Post by **bill_yantz** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:03 am

I have played a few new 12s with the 330 nut and they play much better. Why? The spacing is slightly wider. The objective? It plays better.

I wonder if science was reapplied, to determine the most optimum string spacing with the objective of obtaining the most optimum playability & string performance; if it might result in finding that an even wider spacing is feasible. Why? to play even better. Is it possible?

teb · Post by **teb** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:28 pm

I wish you could try my 360-12WB that came back last month from Arnquist with his widest possible nut, tight pairings and full-width refret. It plays incredibly well. I started in the sixties with an old Framus twelve and then progressed through a Guild, a couple of Martins a Takamine and three Ric 12's (360, 660, 360WB) over the years, but this sucker now has a combination of a fast, thin neck and enough room for big fingers that just blows them all away. It's so nice to be able to pump out the classic Ric sound without constantly having to worry about pinpoint fingering on every chord to avoid damping strings. You can concentrate on being creative, rather than being bogged down just trying to get the mechanics right. As a result, I think my 12-string playing has improved more in the last month than it has in the last 25 years.

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:38 am

I agree Todd. Before the Arnquist mods on my 12's I thought about selling them all. Now, all I play is the 12. You wouldn't think gaining just a hair more room would make so much differance.

Cole

desertgoldenboy · Post by **desertgoldenboy** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:12 am

I just received photos and a document from Mark Arnquist describing all the string spacing mod work that he does to a 360/12. That man really knows his stuff!
Todd or JC: Can you give me an idea of what he would charge to do mine? If you'd rather PM me, my email is [email protected].
Thanks!

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:18 am

Email sent Kenn.

Cole

desertgoldenboy · Post by **desertgoldenboy** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:29 am

Thanks, Cole.

teb · Post by **teb** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:48 am

Mine, with all the normal Arnquist mods except polishing the edges of the guards and re-shaping the TRC, plus having Mark do the fingerboard stripping and full-width re-fret came to $477 plus shipping. I had already made my own pickguards, modified and polished the edges of the TRC, added the middle pickup and toggle control for it and converted the two high-gains to toaster tops myself, so they were already done. Step by step photos of Marks process are in a folder here (30 pics):
http://webpages.charter.net/tbradshaw/Arnquist%20Mods/
I now have roughly $2500 invested in my 12WB, but it sounds and plays like a million bucks. It was worth every penny to get one that looks great, sounds great, plays great and finally fits my hands. When the tornado warning sirens go off, the three things that I take to the basement are my wife, my dog and my Ric twelve (but not necessarily in that order....)