Earvana Drop in nut for warmoth neck (whats your thoughts?)
- Thread starter RU36
- Start date
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,538
Cagey said:That was me that pointed out that you need instrumentation to see the difference the Earvana nut makes. The following chart from Earvana's site documents the correction their nut makes...
You'll notice that the largest difference is only 4 cents, with most of the corrections being smaller than that. The thing is, the human ear can typically only hear differences of 5 cents or larger, and then only in young children with "fresh" ears. [reference] The range for adults is much larger. So, the chances of you hearing any difference when playing single notes are slim to none, and most (although not all) tuners simply aren't that accurate. They don't need to be.
However, it seems that when notes are combined into chords, there are resonances and dissonances resulting from "beat" frequencies that are much more obvious, and when the Earvana nut is employed the corrections it makes are audible. That's why you'll hear people say the Earvana nut doesn't seem to make much difference except when you're playing "cowboy" chords, or chords that include open strings. My own experience seems to bear that out. When I tune the guitar up that has an Earvana on it, the open chords seem to "shimmer" (for lack of a better word). They just sound... better.
Of course, it could just be the power of suggestion that spending $70 on a nut brings <grin>
Well this helps to explain why I always tune my B string slightly flat. I never knew this stuff, but to my ears, it always sounded sharp on chords, even when all 6 strings were tuned with an electronic tuner.
I have one guitar with the Earvana nut (24-3/4" scale), but all my others have a standard nut.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
As it turns out, Warmoth won't be offering the Earvana nut any more. I noticed earlier when I was pricing out a neck that the option wasn't there, then when I went and looked under the Neck Builder section at nuts, they said:
Curiouser and curiouser. So, I went In Search Of... and found this little snippet:
Seems awfully petty of Ernie Ball, Inc. I mean, it's only a quarter mil. Company must be on the skids.
Curiouser and curiouser. So, I went In Search Of... and found this little snippet:
Seems awfully petty of Ernie Ball, Inc. I mean, it's only a quarter mil. Company must be on the skids.
B
back2thefutre
Guest
Seriously no more earvana that's devastating to me 
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
I imagine EB will license the patent to Earvana (or whoever wants to make the things), but depending on the fees they may figure it's not worth it. I thought price was going to come down because the patent(s) were reaching EOL, but it may happen simply because of competition. In any event, I suspect the days of $60 nuts are over, or close to it. The nuts don't cost any more to manufacture than a standard nut, which is cheap, so the only added cost is gonna be licensing fees. Maybe we'll finally start seeing them show up as standard issue on OEM guitars.
S
swarfrat
Guest
TBH both patents should have been invalidated based on prior art.
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,538
So if Ernie Ball invented it first, how come I never heard of it before Earvana came along??
And why haven't I ever seen it featured on any Ernie Ball/Music Man guitars? :icon_scratch:
And why haven't I ever seen it featured on any Ernie Ball/Music Man guitars? :icon_scratch:
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
Actually, Ernie Ball didn't invent it first. The concept has been around for many years. But, the USPTO awards patents for practically anything these days, even software, and once a patent has been awarded it's very difficult to have it invalidated. To make matters worse, many patents are overly broad, so it's left to interpretation whether or not a patent has been infringed in the first place. Unfortunately, the courts almost always find that they have been due to the generality of the wording. In fact, it's gotten quite common to go "venue shopping" to get friendly juries. For instance, east Texas is notorious for awarding ridiculously huge damages in infringement cases.
In any event, Earvana's patent may have built on EB's patent, which would have made it very difficult for EB to use their own patent and that may be why they didn't put that technology on their guitars. It's possible that's why this suit was brought in the first place, as there was clearly very little money involved. EB just wanted to use that tech without getting nailed for it.
In any event, Earvana's patent may have built on EB's patent, which would have made it very difficult for EB to use their own patent and that may be why they didn't put that technology on their guitars. It's possible that's why this suit was brought in the first place, as there was clearly very little money involved. EB just wanted to use that tech without getting nailed for it.
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,538
Cagey said:
So, Erine Ball came up with (or at least patented) the technology first, and yet never produced the product? That seems strange to me.
Ace Flibble
Hero Member
- Messages
- 865
I imagine Earvana will be back making 'em quite quickly, or at the least a joint EB/Earvana operation. ESP alone will pretty much demand it and pay out the nose to get them back, three quarters of their line use Earvana nuts.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
Ace Flibble said:
ESP isn't going to be paying out the nose.
According to this report, total annual guitar production for the last three years has been roughly 3 million units per year, and between 1 and 2 million units per year for the 6 years prior to that. Earvana had an artificial monopoly due to patent protection on compensated nut production for longer than that period, and still only had to pay Ernie Ball $247K in lost profits. Based on how much Earvana was charging for their parts, some simple math tells you that relatively few guitars had those nuts installed.
When you consider that producing a compensated nut costs the same as a non-compensated part, it's clear that all guitars could use them, since all guitars need a nut, compensated or otherwise. Apparently, Earvana wasn't licensing the technology, or wanted too much for a license to make it attractive. That, combined with the fact that few people could hear a difference, would explain why nobody used them.
Now, if Ernie Ball says "You can make your own compensated nuts if you give us $.50 apiece", it suddenly seems like a good idea, and many makers will do it if for no other reason than the marketing value. Even if only half do, that's 1.5M nuts @ $.50, or $750K/yr. for doing nothing but owning a patent. It's free money. So, all that's happened here is the price of a compensated nut is going to drop from the $60 it costs for an Earvana to about $5 or less from nearly everybody.
Of course, Ernie Ball could charge too much for them, like Earvana did, but they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Take up would be dramatically lower, so revenues would be as well. Better to sell jillions of them for very little than a few for a lot. You make more money that way.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
On a related note, those who remember IOMega's "Zip Drives" saw the same thing happen. They came up with a way to pack several orders of magnitude more data on a floppy disk than the general industry could, and patented it. Then, they wanted to keep the technology to themselves so they could overcharge for it, even though it cost little more than a standard drive/disk did using freely available technology. So, while everybody else wanted $20 for a drive and $.20/ea for disks, IOMega wanted $250 for a drive and $10/ea. for disks. Takeup was minimal. They could have sold jillions of the things if they'd have priced them right, but they were too greedy, and it kept them from ever making any serious money.
Apple did the same thing with Firewire. It was a far superior serial communication scheme to USB, but they wanted $.25/ea for every port implemented on a motherboard or peripheral, while USB was free. Since there are literally hundreds of millions of ports implemented annually, can you see the mistake? Where's Firewire today? Even Apple is using USB.
Sony has done it numerous times, with the "Beta" video recording scheme being the most egregious mistake they've made. Again, they wanted to keep the technology to themselves, or would only license it for exorbitant amounts of money, while VHS was free. As a result, dozens of manufacturers made VHS machines, while Sony was nearly the only one selling Beta machines. We all saw what happened there. Even though the Beta format was superior in many ways, it never gained any market share.
Even governments are guilty of it when certain party philosophies are dominant. When tax revenues are down, the tendency is to raise taxes. The problem is, higher taxes reduces the number of taxpayers as businesses fail or reduce employment or pay scales, so revenues go down when taxes go up due to reduced participation. Better to have a lower tax with more payers, as the revenue is higher.
Apple did the same thing with Firewire. It was a far superior serial communication scheme to USB, but they wanted $.25/ea for every port implemented on a motherboard or peripheral, while USB was free. Since there are literally hundreds of millions of ports implemented annually, can you see the mistake? Where's Firewire today? Even Apple is using USB.
Sony has done it numerous times, with the "Beta" video recording scheme being the most egregious mistake they've made. Again, they wanted to keep the technology to themselves, or would only license it for exorbitant amounts of money, while VHS was free. As a result, dozens of manufacturers made VHS machines, while Sony was nearly the only one selling Beta machines. We all saw what happened there. Even though the Beta format was superior in many ways, it never gained any market share.
Even governments are guilty of it when certain party philosophies are dominant. When tax revenues are down, the tendency is to raise taxes. The problem is, higher taxes reduces the number of taxpayers as businesses fail or reduce employment or pay scales, so revenues go down when taxes go up due to reduced participation. Better to have a lower tax with more payers, as the revenue is higher.
Firebird211
Hero Member
- Messages
- 734
kböman said:
That's funny you said that, every guitar I have ever owned, the G string was a pain in my arse too.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
Street Avenger said:
It's on their basses.
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,538
Well I hope it DOES drive the price down.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
Correction. It's not on their basses. They have an indented nut, but all four strings are done the same amount. No compensating going on.
S
swarfrat
Guest
EB doesn't appear to sell nuts, just whole guitars.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
swarfrat said:
Unless you have a government-enforced monopoly on a business that sells things that are practically free to produce for exorbitant amounts of money, there's little reason to offer those products, particularly if there some risk of litigation. Even if you don't sell them individually, you can't offer them without risk of reprisal. Who needs that noise?
But, now that Earvana's been slapped down, the field is wide open. Ernie Ball will certainly use the widely understood scheme on their own instruments. but if they're smart they'll license it to anybody and their dog so as to generate revenue before the improperly awarded patent expires.
