Leaving old Schaller tailpiece and bridge on

[rockabilly69]

5 hours ago, MartyGrass said:

Some of us are born with inclinations towards solving problems, engineering, and being a mechanic.  I'm one of them.  I learned soldering, replacing harnesses, set ups, etc. with guitars because I liked learning and doing it.  Every time I pick up a guitar I subconsciously assess the set up and the state of the strings.

I had not thought of this before, but it reminds me of the military, particularly the Marines.  They bond to their rifle and care for its every need.

 

I learned to fix my own guitars when I realized it was a waste of money bringing them to a tech all of the time. When I went full time as a musician, I started realizing in closer detail what I wanted my guitars to do, so I learned how to dial them in. I learned out to do the things that others didn't want to, truss-rod adjustments, fret dressing, special electronic wiring, etc. Not luthier stuff, just basic guitar setup and repair. When I found I had a knack for it, I turned it into a side hustle to supplement my gig money. I worked on guitars for people one day a week, and then that turned into two days a week, until I had enough gigs where I didn't need to do it anymore. In the process, I really learned what I liked, and I also found out that many of the things touted on the internet as guitar setup gospel, weren't

[tbonesullivan]

10 hours ago, MartyGrass said:

Some of us are born with inclinations towards solving problems, engineering, and being a mechanic.  I'm one of them.  I learned soldering, replacing harnesses, set ups, etc. with guitars because I liked learning and doing it.  Every time I pick up a guitar I subconsciously assess the set up and the state of the strings.

Yes, and also no. Musical instruments are not engineered, they are designed, and decisions made often can fly in the face of what an engineering or mechanical standpoint would be. My other musical side is a brass musician, and I have spent far FAR more time involved in playing Tenor, Bass, and Alto trombone than I probably ever will while playing guitar and bass. And I have seen many products of "superior engineering" fall flat on their face in that market, just as they do in the guitar world. Because it's not about engineering, it's about design, it's about produced sound, it's about the feel of the instrument, and other things that cannot be quantified. You have people who are all about trying to market how their product / design is the product of superior engineering, ignoring the fact that where instruments are today is the result of hundreds of years of change and evolution. They also tend to ignore the fact that often, they were NOT the first person to think up the design, and that it didn't work the first time. Then you also have to remember to throw in the placebo effect, which results in some people always thinking every change they make results in something better.

It's pretty amazing to see how many different takes their are on the "best" bridge for a G-style guitar, and what aspects of that particular bridge make it "the best". Ted McCarty had a degree in engineering. He oversaw GIbson during the time when the Tune-O-Matic was originally created. Yet, the PRS design he consulted on, which premiered in 1994, came with not the PRS adjustable Stoptail bridge, but with the bridge that they have used for years now: a stop tail that is a solid piece of metal, with screws at the back for rough intonation. Pretty much a lightning bar. Minimal pieces should result in maximum sound conduction, and with all of the tension of the strings applied to the threads in the bushings, that should result in a large amount of engaged surface area under a lot of pressure. But is that really the secret to the "best" tone and sustain?

Look at the ABR-1. The strings rest directly on the saddles, which are on a threaded insert, which rests in/on the bridge. This itself rests on wide threaded washers which are on 6-32 x 1-1/16" posts threaded directly into the wood of the guitar. Many consider the ABR-1 without the wire to be the best bridge for G-style guitars, even with the fact that they can collapse over time (some state that the first few years used a better alloy and won't collapse), and that the range of intonation adjustment is limited. This however seems to have a lot less potential for sound conduction than the lightning bar in some ways, so is that really what the "secret sauce" is? I won't mention the nylon bridge inserts that Gibson went to in the early 60s, which are Angus Young's favorite, but others hate. It's all about the sound, and they are supposed to give a softer edge on the notes due to construction.

Look at the two major types of tremolos out there: fulcrum and roller based. The Floyd Rose type and Kahler type are the epitome of the design, especially in their current form, though they are often felt to lack sustain. However the solution to that for many is pretty simple: Materials and Mass. Brass Rollers and Saddles on the Kahler. Heavier Tremolo Block on the Floyd.

I guess I'm rambling now, but I always come back to how Eric Clapton has blocked tremolos on his Strats and doesn't just use the hardtail version, as he feels they sound better. Tone secret: One of the guitars used on Early ZZ Top records was a hardtail strat. Everything from an engineering standpoint, if you want optimal sound conduction, should favor the hardtail. But many don't, even if they never use the Tremolo.

Edited September 22 by tbonesullivan

[y2kc]

I am just not a great enough player to think that changing anything on my guitar is going to result in nirvana.

My issues are just lining up three notes in a row that sound good to my ear. I do appreciate an instrument set up 

correctly and that is as easy to play as possible but I do not have any illusions that a hardware change will

make me turn into Matteo Mancuso.

I own more than my share of Heritage guitars. Many old and and one Marv made for me. Just interested in 

playing music, no interest in part replacement.