Fun Stuff > BAND
Re: The Guitar Topic - B
jeph:
They tend to have really stiff action and are often not as stable tuning-wise because of the high tension of the strings behind the bridge saddles. This is the same reason you shouldn't drop the stop-tail too far below the bridge itself on Gibson guitars (particularly Les Pauls, because the carved top means you can make an even sharper angle than on an SG/Flying V/etc.)
Besides, the only real reason you'd want string-through body is for "snap" and "sustain," and you get more of both of those via the guitar's scale length, wood composition, and pickups than you do from how tightly the strings are bent over the bridge.
Finally: the reason a lot of Korean and Chinese made guitars (like most Schecters, LTDs, cheaper Ibanezes, etc.) have string-through body bridges is that running the strings through the body into ferrules is cheaper than installing a proper gibson style tailpiece. It has nothing to do with tone or playability and everything to do with saving 75 cents' worth of metal.
boneykingofnowhere:
I'm toying with the Idea of swapping out the bridge on my tele. Its a mexican standard and its only a year or two old ( I bought it new last summer, never checked the manufacturing date), so its got the "modern" style bridge with six saddles. Would buying a wilkinson compensated bridge and using it as a top-laoder make that big of a difference in tone and/or sustain, and if not, would buying a six-saddle "vintage" style make a difference?
Patrick:
--- Quote from: jeph on 09 Jun 2009, 03:36 ---Besides, the only real reason you'd want string-through body is for "snap" and "sustain," and you get more of both of those via the guitar's scale length, wood composition, and pickups than you do from how tightly the strings are bent over the bridge.
--- End quote ---
Gotta beg to differ here, just on principle. The energy being transferred into your bridge is directly translated into energy being transferred into the wood of the body, and that directly affects how much sustain you're gonna get. And if you've got a disgustingly obtuse break angle, you're not gonna get much. That only really applies to Jag players like me, though. Once you get an angle steeper than 170 degrees (well, hey-o, would you look at that, that's every other guitar design ever), you're absolutely right.
Although top-loading bridges are such a pain in the ass to re-string (at least in my experience), I don't know how you'll stand it.
jeph:
--- Quote from: boneykingofnowhere on 09 Jun 2009, 08:51 ---I'm toying with the Idea of swapping out the bridge on my tele. Its a mexican standard and its only a year or two old ( I bought it new last summer, never checked the manufacturing date), so its got the "modern" style bridge with six saddles. Would buying a wilkinson compensated bridge and using it as a top-laoder make that big of a difference in tone and/or sustain, and if not, would buying a six-saddle "vintage" style make a difference?
--- End quote ---
If anything, the Wilkinson should IMPROVE the tone, but unless you're planning on putting a different kind of pickup in the bridge, why bother changing it? Tele bridges are made to house Tele pickups.
If you want to improve the tone of your guitar, swap out the shitty mexican pickups for some decent Seymour Duncans before you go messing about with the bridge.
jeph:
--- Quote from: Patrick on 09 Jun 2009, 10:29 ---
--- Quote from: jeph on 09 Jun 2009, 03:36 ---Besides, the only real reason you'd want string-through body is for "snap" and "sustain," and you get more of both of those via the guitar's scale length, wood composition, and pickups than you do from how tightly the strings are bent over the bridge.
--- End quote ---
Gotta beg to differ here, just on principle. The energy being transferred into your bridge is directly translated into energy being transferred into the wood of the body, and that directly affects how much sustain you're gonna get. And if you've got a disgustingly obtuse break angle, you're not gonna get much. That only really applies to Jag players like me, though. Once you get an angle steeper than 170 degrees (well, hey-o, would you look at that, that's every other guitar design ever), you're absolutely right.
Although top-loading bridges are such a pain in the ass to re-string (at least in my experience), I don't know how you'll stand it.
--- End quote ---
I own a guitar with a Floyd Rose. Everything is less of a pain in the ass than that.
If you want an ULTIMATE GUITAR NIGHTMARE, try re-intonating a Floyd Rose. There is literally no way to adjust the bridge saddles while they have strings on them. So you take the string off, make an adjustment, put the string back on (and remember this requires tightening and untightening at least a couple hex heads as well as the tuning pegs), check the tuning, repeat 1000x until you either guess right or get frustrated and give up. Oh and by adjusting the string length you're ALSO messing with the stability of the trem springs, so you also have to adjust THOSE, which is MORE trial and error.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version