After 30 + years, I finally tried the "wrap around" method, here's MHO

[davesultra]

Should they be?  Mine are setup with the intonation screws facing aft, but I've seen pictures of Tunamatic's setup with the screws facing forward (toward the neck).  Is there a right way?

The norm with a Nashville style TOM is to have the screws facing the stoptail.

The norm for an ABR-1 style TOM is to have the screws facing the nut.

I'm not certain that those are set in stone in regards to be "proper". But I'd be willing to guess that the guys over at the LPForum would have something to say about this topic  :police:.

[cosmikdebriis]

On any "saddled" bridge that I have come across you can change the orientation of the saddle. also you can change the orientation of the bridge so that the screws face forwards or backwards. As I prefer the screws to face backwards because it's so much easier to adjust them, then I "adjust" my bridges accordingly.

 

Just a personal preference...

 

All I want now is some individual saddle height adjustment to get round that different bridge and fretboard radius problem.... :wink:

[Spectrum13]

Cos,

 

  Agreed, screws facing the tail are easier to adjust. Slotting the saddles and ramping down to the tailpiece on all the strings is an art and left out of most setups due the skills, time or knowledge of the tech. Setting radius is much easier on a Fender bridge than a ABR-1 or Nashville for sure. 

[jacques]

Funny: I seem to have a Nashville bridge on my 535 and an ABR-1 (though without that weird retainer wire) on my 150. These guitars are manufactured just one year apart so one wonders why Heritage chose for either of the two...

[Peter Cl]

For someone who found his optimum H150 tone and feel by gradually going up and up in string gauge (flatwound 13's!), it's fascinating to read the words "I am finally getting a taste of the true H-150 experience the way it should have been all along" i.e, using 9 gauge strings and top-wrapping! Man, that's so completely alien to me but just goes to show that there are absolutely no absolutes.

 

For that kind of versatility you have to start off with a great instrument, methinks  :afro:

[Kazwell]

For someone who found his optimum H150 tone and feel by gradually going up and up in string gauge (flatwound 13's!), it's fascinating to read the words "I am finally getting a taste of the true H-150 experience the way it should have been all along" i.e, using 9 gauge strings and top-wrapping! Man, that's so completely alien to me but just goes to show that there are absolutely no absolutes.

 

For that kind of versatility you have to start off with a great instrument, methinks

 

You have to realize, for whatever reason, the strings gauges on H-150's always felt heavier than they were. For example, the first time I played one in a music store, I asked the salesperson if they had 11's on them, and he said they were 10's. I was used to using 11's on other guitars including Strats and Tele's so I know what 11's feel like.

Regarless, when my H-150 arrived via a music store via E-Bay, it had I believe 10's with a low action. I could immediately hear the crunchy tone I prefer with a LP type guitar. I went ahead and put 11's on it, but the action felt stiff.

 

I tried rasing the action, which helped a bit, but I decided for many reasons, I needed a change. Instead of buying a new guitar, I tend to do things like change PU's, strings, various mods, hey it's my hobby. Some people do the same thing with car parts.

 

I also believe that 11's were just too much work. Why work so hard for a bigger sound? I think the tone is different, but not better, definately louder. I know folks will debate this but what's the point? Tone is pretty subjective anyway.

 

Well I noticed I liked the tone and feel of the 9's. I can do more with bends and vibrato. I like to play fast when I want and enjoyeffortlessly playing patterns. I still get a good jazz sound when I want, but  I mostly like to rock out and jam to blues patterns and even some hard rock and metal. Sure 13's are good for that jazzy tone and some rock. But a lot also has to do with your hands and hand strength.

Why do guys like Billy Gibbons use 8's, Jimmy Page 9's? I imagine they have developed some hand strength over the years.They play accoustic guitars, they know about heavier gauge strings.

Seems like the H-150 makes 9's feel heavier, but thats a good thing for me. It's actually like I am playing 10's, but the overwrapping allows me to have the action higher on the bridge without strings hitting the end of the bridge.

 

I repalced the ABR-1 with a Nashville bridge and much of the tone I seemed to have lost from overwrapping came back. Don't ask me why or how, I don't really care. I have been playing close to 35 years now. I have owned all types of guitars-currently have 13. I know what I like soundwise and how I like the strings to feel. For now, the .9s work. Who knows what will feel and sound best to me a year from now.

[yoslate]

Instead of buying a new guitar, I tend to do things like change PU's, strings, various mods, hey it's my hobby. Some people do the same thing with car parts.

 

I also believe that 11's were just too much work. Why work so hard for a bigger sound? I think the tone is different, but not better, definately louder. I know folks will debate this but what's the point? Tone is pretty subjective anyway.

 

Well I noticed I liked the tone and feel of the 9's. I can do more with bends and vibrato. I like to play fast when I want and enjoyeffortlessly playing patterns. I still get a good jazz sound when I want, but  I mostly like to rock out and jam to blues patterns and even some hard rock and metal. Sure 13's are good for that jazzy tone and some rock. But a lot also has to do with your hands and hand strength.

Why do guys like Billy Gibbons use 8's, Jimmy Page 9's? I imagine they have developed some hand strength over the years.They play accoustic guitars, they know about heavier gauge strings.

 

Don't ask me why or how, I don't really care. I have been playing close to 35 years now. I have owned all types of guitars-currently have 13. I know what I like soundwise and how I like the strings to feel. For now, the .9s work. Who knows what will feel and sound best to me a year from now.

 

Synchronicity...here we go again!  Find myself at the same point, Kaz, thinking the same just this week.  Guitar chores with my new band are a little challenging, as I'm essentially replacing two guys.  Big Chords, little shapes, fills, arpeggios, screamin' solos, back and forth...I've been using .011's for a long time.  Put a set of DR's .010's on the 150 the other night....  Whoa...very  different!  I've always (thought I) liked to "work" for notes, and thought the tone of .011's better.  Maybe I'm just getting older and lazier, but the .010's really change the act of playing for me; now the issue is not simply the act of "getting hold" of the note but, since notes are "easier" to grab, the issue has become what I do with the note once I have it.  My approach in playing has changed a bit, and I see that as a good thing, evolution rather than stasis, making it easier on myself to be a better player (I hope).  The more things stay, the more they change the same....

[jacques]

Happens to everybody, these things. I look it as a 'change of scene' - same goes for playing one of your other guitars that hasn't been played for a while. Buying a new amp. Finding a new guitar. If you dudes are like me and I think you are, your guitar playing is a way of life, (no matter what other roles you may have to play during the daytime). Just imagine how deep this goes and it is easy to understand that using a different string gauge, may produce strange new energies  :afro: yeah

[Peter Cl]

I missed out the word "now" when I referred to your (Kaz's) setup being alien to me.

 

This is indeed fascinating stuff because my experience has been completely the opposite!

 

I played basically Rock-Fusion style for around 30 years (yikes, it's been nearly 40 now !!!) and my main instrument before the H150 was a MIJ Strat, strung with 10's. When the Heritage came along, it was likewise strung, and I loved it but it always felt slacker than the Fender, with most of the sound being generated by the humbuckers on 10 and assorted effects. The intrinsic resonance of the guitar was not coming through, though that's not something I really used to spend much time thinking of. (plexirocker 68's first post in the Nashville thread currently sharing this page is the s**t on this). 

 

A few years ago now, I got to know a guy who was using 12's on a Strat and there was something in his tone that I realised I wanted to explore. Long story short, after trying 11's (on the H150) and getting half of what I was seeking, I ended up with roundwound 12's and was blown away by how the guitar resonated against my gut and how that translated into full, pure, if you will, sound coming out of the speaker and up again through my feet This was "my" revelation.

 

You're damn right that tone is subjective; listen to Pat Martino and J Scofield jamming out "Sunny" (it's on youtube) and as many will love one as the other. I can't get into Scofield's (to me) harsh tone, but so what?

 

Heavier strings are not just about tone for me, I've actually found I play a lot more accurately; if I try fast staccato stuff on lighter strings, I'm all over the place and digging in way too hard for them. I have trouble trying out guitars in stores for this reason. I don't know about hand strength, but a longish stint playing just acoustic with med strings and high action may have something to do with it.

 

Anyway, your experience is very different and works for you and the fact that Billy Gibbons conjures up all that voodoo on skinny strings, (and top-wrapping) it's further proof that there are no absolutes. Cool.

 

Strange energies indeed  8) :afro: 8)

[yoslate]

it is easy to understand that using a different string gauge, may produce strange new energies  :afro: yeah

 

 

"...strange new energies."  Exactly what I'm hoping for!  Nice lick, jacques!  Nice lick!                 

[Kazwell]

Heavier strings are not just about tone for me, I've actually found I play a lot more accurately; if I try fast staccato stuff on lighter strings, I'm all over the place and digging in way too hard for them. I have trouble trying out guitars in stores for this reason

 

I increase the accuracy by keeping the action on the medium to high side. For the most part it seems a higher end shop takes pride in dispaying guitars that are set up at least halfway well with at least average quality strings that are somewhat in tune. I know its impossible to keep everything perfect but places like Guitar Center are reallly bad. They leave on the cheap factory strings, they are usually totally out of tune with gunk on them and unstretched, so it's an uphill battle to even get the thing in tune. The only available amp with a cable is usually some sub quality cheapie of the week with the distortion channel cranked, and with the all noise and confusion..well, I would rather just take my chances on E-Bay.

[PacerX]

String tension is not reduced. This would defy the law of physics. A string's pitch is determined by the materials & construction of the string (namely it's diameter, other things to lesser effect), its tension, and it's length.

 

If the length of the string between nut and saddle is not changed (you'll have major intonation problems if it has been as you've effectively changed the scale of the guitar) and you have the same strings, and they are tuned to correct pitch - the tension of the strings is identical.

 

The string neither knows nor cares that it has been around the bridge or straight across it before defining the vibrating portion determined soley by distance between nut and saddle.

 

Cheers, Cryoman

 

While you are correct that the tension is not reduced to hit a given pitch, the difference in feel is real - and conforms with the laws of physics.

 

Here's how it works:

 

When you bend a string, you are increasing the tension in the string to raise the pitch.  A given amount of increased tension in the string is required to hit a given change in pitch.

 

The RATE of change difference the the amount of force you have to put into the string defines how "stiff" or "slinky" the guitar feels.  In other words, a guitar that requires less input force from you to get to the desired pitch feels "slinkier" than a guitar that requires more.

 

Were the system 100% efficent, then all guitars would feel the same.

 

Trouble is, it isnt'...

 

Here's where the physics starts...

 

When you bend a string, you apply more tension to it.  The net amount of added tension that gets to the OPERATING part of the string is what increases the pitch.

 

Strings, however, come over the bridge.

 

In a free body diagram (a little engineering sketch) the input force is broken into what are called "vectors" at the bridge.  One vector runs parallel with the string (the part that increases the pitch), the other points straight into the body (through the bridge - it gets wasted).  The breakover angle of the bridge determines how much of that force ends up on which vector.  The greater the vector driving the bridge into the body, the greater amount of force that has to be input into the string to reach the desired pitch, because the force on the vector driving the bridge into the body is wasted (fundamentally, it's an efficiency loss).

 

So, if you want a slinkier feel to your strings while bending (or even with fretting them), the way to get it is to shallow up the bridge breakover angle by raising the height of the tailpiece (or lowering the height of the bridge).  That makes the vector driving the bridge into the body smaller, and makes the system more efficient from the standpoint of the amount of added force you put into the string giving a larger amount of difference in pitch.

 

In top-wrapping, that's effectively what you are doing, and why the string feels slinkier.

 

Any resonance benefits are more problematic...  and would take a lot more math... but are probably due to the tailpiece making better contact with the body than it does when it is just slotted into the posts.

[yoslate]

Well done post, Pacer!  Even I get that one!!  (The only reason I passed physics in high school is because the instructor thought I was hilarious.  He was told me, "Once you're not funny anymore, you're in real trouble in here....")  Credibly technical, but very readable, your post convinces me:  Leave the .011's on, top-wrap it.  Thanks, and karma up for such a well written piece!

[111518]

Pacer X:

I agree with Yoslate, thanks, once again, for a well-written and informative post.  A while back you changed my mind about string length and tuning with a logical argument, this time you confirm my instinct that angle of stringbreak has something to do with the effort needed to bend.  Maybe having the stop further back than on the original or reissue dots has something to do with the magic of Carlton's 335 --it reduced the downward angle on the bridge.  (Of course, 99.99%  of the magic of that 335 is that Carlton plays it.)

 

Here's a question:

Do you think there would be any measurable difference in sustain between a) a stop piece cranked to the wood and top wrapped and a higher stop piece with the strings through but with bushings to allow the stop to be as rigid as if cranked down?  Am I right in guessing that height, in and of itself, has nothing to do with resonance?  Adding lessons 1 + 2 from above together seems to indicate that top wrapping would not be the ideal way to obtain the bridge-angle advantage, since it adds string length and therefore potential tuning problems.  I would guess top wrapping adds more length than would a winding or two on a tuner post.  Wouldn't it be better to raise the tailpiece and yet still "couple" it with the body and thus dampen the movement that would draw energy from the string?

 

Thanks again for the demystification.  If I understand how something works, I can make an informed decision.  I have that same problem Muddy Waters had ...when I need it most, mojo jes' don't work. 

[PacerX]

Pacer X:

I agree with Yoslate, thanks, once again, for a well-written and informative post.  A while back you changed my mind about string length and tuning with a logical argument, this time you confirm my instinct that angle of stringbreak has something to do with the effort needed to bend.  Maybe having the stop further back than on the original or reissue dots has something to do with the magic of Carlton's 335 --it reduced the downward angle on the bridge.  (Of course, 99.99%  of the magic of that 335 is that Carlton plays it.)

 

Here's a question:

Do you think there would be any measurable difference in sustain between a) a stop piece cranked to the wood and top wrapped and a higher stop piece with the strings through but with bushings to allow the stop to be as rigid as if cranked down?  Am I right in guessing that height, in and of itself, has nothing to do with resonance?  Adding lessons 1 + 2 from above together seems to indicate that top wrapping would not be the ideal way to obtain the bridge-angle advantage, since it adds string length and therefore potential tuning problems.   I would guess top wrapping adds more length than would a winding or two on a tuner post.  Wouldn't it be better to raise the tailpiece and yet still "couple" it with the body and thus dampen the movement that would draw energy from the string?

 

Thanks again for the demystification.  If I understand how something works, I can make an informed decision.   I have that same problem Muddy Waters had ...when I need it most, mojo jes' don't work. 

 

Hmmmm.... That one I have to think about...

 

Well, let's start with this:

 

A lot of guys who top-wrap swear they get better sustain out of the guitar because the tailpiece is slammed down onto the body.  This has some merit to it in that the tailpiece will be coupled to the body differently than if it's just slotted into the posts.

 

Your idea of bushings might work also in that the idea would be to couple the two (the body and the tailpiece) together as rigidly as possible (from the string's point of view).

 

You may be onto something with the idea that the height isn't the root cause of a resonance or sustain difference, but that the root cause is how rigidly the string gets coupled to the body...

 

 

OK...

 

Tuning...

 

Yes, there would be some decrease in tuning stability at the bridge from top wrapping.

 

Whether or not it is measurable would be the issue.  You're doing two bad things at that point to the string...

 

1) Adding more of it.  More is bad.  The smallest amount of string you can possibly have in the system, the better.  Everybody thought Floyd Rose was nuts when he had everyone cut their ball ends off and then clamp them as close to the bridge breakover point as possible... Floyd's pretty much had the last laugh there.

 

2) You're wrapping it around something else it can bind on.  Binding (and then when the bind slips) is what causes most tuning stability problems.

 

That being said, the real culprit in tuning stability problems on most guitars is at the other end of the neck - the tuning pegs, the nut and any string trees, which are the very things a nut clamp takes out of the equation entirely.

 

The proof there is that a Floyd Rose isn't all that much more stable than a Fender tremolo if you unclamp it at the nut.

 

 

In truth, I think if you slammed the tailpiece, wrapped the string around it, and threw on a set of locking tuners - you'd probably have better tuning stability than if you didn't have the lockers and had an unwrapped tailpiece... of course, having a properly cut nut in either situation is critical.

[Spectrum13]

Good coupling on a higher tailpiece will achieve the desired stringbreak angle and string feel without the wrapover's additional string length and potential tuning difficulties. I would also argue your strings are SHORTER with a higher tail piece and $37 for the Farber locking studs is cheaper than changing out the tuners which could still be done. After setting bridge height, your string gage and stringbreak angle are the only options available to adjust string feel. While slamming down the tailpiece to the body is one way to assure great coupling (when the studs hold the tailpiece tight) assuming we understand all the dynamics at play here, if you can get great coupling without the disavantages of wrapover and steep stringbreak why not? When we solve one problem but create another, it's time to reapply the scientific method.  BTW, love this thread and my low breakangled , Farber locked non wrapover tailpiece 150 with 10s that kept me playing last night way too late.   

[Peter Cl]

Well, I've never set foot in Guitar Center because my only visit so far to the Americas was south of the Panama canal

 

Before moving out to the sticks, I used to frequent a couple of stores back in Barcelona, Spain, and they used to look after the few top-quality guitars they had, but they were all strung really light. Even the Ibanez G Benson model, I remember, which was just begging to have its heavy metal potential tapped. Not.

 

After reading PacerX's dissertation, I actually lowered the tailpiece height to see if this resulted in less slinkiness. It did not seem to, at all.

 

A question; I once saw a LP with a 335-style trapeze tailpiece (not the early 50's LP type) and apart from not disliking the apearance, I got to wondering what impact this would have on feel and tone. Any ideas / experience ?

 

Interesting thread.

[Kazwell]

[Dick Seacup]

 

Interesting, Kaz.  I've heard of them, but never seen them.  So, the height is fixed, then?

[111518]

No, height isn't fixed.  The bottom part can be screwed up and down (see the flats for a wrench on the bottom flange), then, once height is fixed, the top part screws down.  I have them on my Junior, fixing a pigtail-type bridge  --they prevent the lean forward that typically happens on those guitars.  The tonepro studs don't provide a hard couple to the top --just the thread link of the posts.  You could however, screw a locknut up the threads of the post and then tighten it back down to the face of the guitar, and that would be pretty rigid. 

 

...just reread this and realized I might have misunderstood your question.  Maybe you mean the height can't change once the top is screwed down?  That would be true, but it wouldn't be "coupled" to the top. 

 

Thanks, Kaz, for posting the pic of the tonepros.  I hadn't really thought of them as a part of a solution to the issues addressed on this thread, because of the coupling thing, but that could be readily remedied in the  small parts isle of the local hardware store ...I love that isle.

[Rude Dog]

Yeah, It's an old thread... but there's good stuff here, so I thought I'd add my -very short- experience.

 

I just tried wrapping over the top for the first time a 1/2 hour ago on my H-150 and did not like it at all.

 

My observations (based on playing it for about 20 minutes, then going back):

 

top wrapping added sustain and what I would term "body" to the tone. Less clarity, chime; & detail was lost - which means the tone got fatter.

 

I didn't like the "feel" at all - too rubbery; didn't like the top wrapping at all.

 

It felt & sounded like my guitar's personality was taken away with the top wrapping.

 

As a reference to my personal tastes:

I Keep my tail piece up pretty high as part of my normal setup so that there's quite a bit of clearance between the back of the bridge & strings, but not as much clearance as top wrapping provided.

 

I've figured out that I like the natural decay of notes and don't like a ton of sustain from my guitar - I prefer to have a cranked amp and use the guitar's volume knob to control/add subtract sustain...

 

And that I like clarity and openess. If I'm in the mood for more beef I turn the mids up on my amp 

[tulk1]

It's always fun to see these very old threads reappear. Like a little slice of history.

 

I would think that to get the full true effect for wrap around you would need a compensated bridge designed just for top wrapping. My McRosie had that. It could pull 10's like they were 9's. And as far a I know that may have even been mentioned in this thread, but I didn't reread this whole thing. Thing is, there are those like them and those that don't. Personally, if it comes that way, cool. If not ... cool!!

[golferwave]

  Thanks for reopening this old thread.  It's great to revisit some of the old subjects.  I just wish we had our old friend Kazwell back to stimulate conversation.

[paul144]

I'm another advocate of the Faber hardware. So simple, yet effective. You can hold the guitar up by the tailpiece with no strings on it. And its just a metal spacer & 2 new studs. There are 6 included with 2 new studs (3 different pairs of various thicknesses). The thickest one worked best on my goldtop. But I have 4 left over which could easily be used on another stop tail guitar if you can remove the bottom part of the stud where the tailpiece sits on (like the included new studs). Gonna get my Dremel out and see what I can do! I bet you could make your own with some hardware from Lowe's.

[Spectrum13]

Paul,

  I use the extra metal spacers under tone-pro studs as well as under a one piece stopbridge and it makes sense in this regard.  The Tone-Pro locks the stop bar to the studs but NOT to the body. The Faber locks to the body. Rem has a problem with high stoptails and recommend topwrap to prevent "rocking torque" as he has seen more than a couple of collapsed bridges and is no fan of the torque placed on the studs when raised up. He really liked the Faber solution with locking the studs to the body. Does that make sense?