Blocking a Tremolo on a Strat ??

[monradon]

I read three different Ideas on blocking a tremolo or would just putting in all the springs be enough

[Runewalker]

I've done this alot and you get superior coupling by blocking the trem. If you are sold on it being permanent there are a couple of alternative approaches the secure the bridge even more firmly, but that involve drilling and tapping the inertia block.

This will both make tuning more stable, and improve the tone (less string vibe dissapation). But, no more atomic dive bombs.

Putting more and stronger springs is not the same.

[Mini-Strat_Maine]

There are other commercial ones out there, including one that's in the Stew-Mac catalog (by Hipshot, maybe?), but this looked kinda interesting: www.freelok.com.

So, what's a "dive bomb," anyway? Pulling the arm in different directions can change the pitch up or down? (I've got two guitars with "Strat-type" trems, neither of which came with a handle, and one with a Bigsby. That guitar's still being rewired.)

[dunkelfalke]

dive bomb?
it is an extreme downpitching, think of the van halen motorbike sound.
won't work with 6 screw strat vibrato anyway.

[monradon]

Blocking permanent sounds great what do I do ??

[Mini-Strat_Maine]

dunkelfalke said:

dive bomb?
it is an extreme downpitching, think of the van halen motorbike sound.
won't work with 6 screw strat vibrato anyway.

Okay, now I've learned two new things today. ;D
Thanks for the info.

[Runewalker]

The freelok device is interesting. I don't like first that it secures itself into the thin wood between the pup floor and spring cavity. Maybe there is an allowance for tapping into the beef between routs, but even that seems underengineered, from my point of view. Others will argue with that, but naturally, they would be wrong.

I've actually developed a device that is removeable, that locks the trem. It requires fabricating however. Nothing that can't be done by the hobbiest just more elaborate.

The permanent method I spoke of is pretty simple. The instructions below are for the six screw vintage style bridges. The double pivot type takes a slightly diff approach.

They make a knurled headed screw, any where from an 8 to a 12. The thread pitch varies, from 24 to 32.

Remove the springs off the inertia block. Take a pencil and scribe a line on the inertia block where it meets the spring cavity wall.

Remove the inertia block (3 screws under the saddles.

Drill 2 of the right size holes for the selected screw size into the inertia block. The holes will be slightly smaller than the bolt diameter. Caution, it must be perfectly perpendicular. The easy way is to drill a perpendicular guide hole into a piece of 1X4 wood material, then use that to guide the bit.

Tap the holes with the correct size threaded tapping tool.

Screw the bolts into the back of the inertia block (away from the springs). Put a washer, lockwasher and nut beteween the block and the knurled head. The knurled headed screw will be between 1 1/4" to 2" depending on the available dimentions of your guitar cavity.

Install the inertia block back onto the bridge.

Sucker the knurled headed bolt until the head toucheds the back of the cavity, and the block is pushed against the front of the cavity (towards the springs). Thighten with needle nose until completely secure and immobile. Do go tarzan on this as the head will dig into the soft fibers of the bod. Firm not agressive.

Put back at least one string because usually the comb is grounded, to complete that circuit. More springs if you believe the whole spring reverb theory. They are inconsequential to the coupling.

This may not make sense without superior visualizing skills or pix. Heres Dr. Electron's version:

electron.tailfeatherz.com/c22.html

Albeit I prefer the knurled headed screws, these certainly work. He grounded direct, so left the spring off.

It is simple. Taps can be bought individually. the hardest part is the perpendicular hole. Drilling is usually easy because inertia blocks of most the cheap bridges out there are a soft base metal.

Or you can go help out Dr. Electron:

Hmmmm..... The Dr. used to have a device that was a replacement inertia block called the "Tailfeatherz" that did the above procedure for you. But when I tried to find it from my end the links were broken. His site used to have some order forms. Maybe that business failed.

[dunkelfalke]

there are vibrato lockers already, schaller tremstop for example

had one, hated it though.

[ChrisK]

I'm glad that this thread occurred. I think that I'll block the vibrato on am Am Dlx Strat that I'm changing the SCN pickups to a set (3)of Rio Grande Dual Calibrated ones. It has a rosewood board and an alder body, but a hard(er) tail bridge would be good.

Do you find that two screws are better than one? A single screw would give a three-point mounting/bearing (this screw plus two on the newer Am Vibrato).

If you're doing any threading in the U.S, (one of the last binary and not decimal countries), Sears has a small machine screw tap AND tap drill set that goes from #4-40 to #12 coarse. It's about $30 normal, and usually $20 when the Craftsman Tool Club sales have it. Unless you have both a number and letter drill index (the 115 piece/$115 for U.S. mfgr), tap drill sizes are hard to find and fairly critical in their need to be used.

[UnklMickey]

dunkelfalke said:

there are vibrato lockers already, schaller tremstop for example

had one, hated it though.

why?

[dunkelfalke]

it didn't really fit the arm of my wilkinson, wasn't very helpful and locked only one side of the vibrato.

will try rockinger blackbox soon, should be a much better unit which doesn't block the vibrato but instead gives it a well defined zero position.

this should help the bends and the sustain without blocking the vibrato completely (i use it quite often, i am trying to imitate david gilmour after all)

[vroom]

I blocked the trem on my strat copy with a piece of hard wood that I cut to size. Made the guitar actually usable.

[sumgai]

Chris,

vroom said:

I blocked the trem on my strat copy with a piece of hard wood that I cut to size. Made the guitar actually usable.

If you're gonna block everything up permanently, what vroom said is considered the proper way to go. In point of fact, it seems silly to depend on two small-footprint contact points for transferring vibrations between the inertia block and the guitar body itself. Doing that will merely stop the block from moving unwantedly, but it won't help the tone at all. The hardwood block that vroom mentions is much more apt to give you the resonance that you expect from a 'hardtail' body. Although in the past I have sometimes put in hemlock or alder (just happend to have some on hand), and it all seemed to work just fine, no differences could be noted by any listener. (But that might be subject to the density of the body itself, I haven't fully researched that aspect of it.)

The original inertia blocks, as designed a built by Leo, were made of steel. However, probably since not long after CBS bought Fender, the blocks have been made of 'pot metal', a by-product of aluminum castings. Soft, light, workable, temperature stable, but not very strong. If you're really gonna do this right, get a Callaham Steel Inertia Block for about $50-60, then block it up. Blocked or left normal, that thing adds an amazing tone to the overall guitar, compared to the old block. Not to mention that because it's made of steel just like the original, it sustains for days.


sumgai

[dunkelfalke]

at that price it is probably better to go directly for a wilkinson.
it is made of steel and it is a much better vibrato unit anyway.

the only problem i have with my wilkinson is the bending problem but only because it is a free floating (vs-50) one. the vsvg, for the 6 screws isn't free floating.

then again i have locking tuners and a roller nut in this guitar.

[simes]

I blocked my Strat by cutting and inserting a close-fitting piece of teak (which is what was available) on both sides of the block. The improvement was dramatic: sustain, responsiveness, tone.

[Runewalker]

simes said:

I blocked my Strat by cutting and inserting a close-fitting piece of teak (which is what was available) on both sides of the block. The improvement was dramatic: sustain, responsiveness, tone.

Tried and true, reversible and old school. If you go this route, use maple if you can find it. Denser, closer grained. Folks on this board tend to avoid the obvious and seek more engineered designs. Blocks of wood work of course. Even that though works better with some precision machining (or rough cuts and hand sanding to fit).

Floyds and some dual pivots, though, require (hopefully precise) wedges on both sides of the inertia block. The more surface area in contact with the planes of the inertial block the better. You are trying to essentially turn the body, wood wedges and inertia block into a monolithic substrate. I find the more multisyllabic words you use the more it sounds like you know what you are talking about, in spite of any reality to the contrary.

[Mini-Strat_Maine]

runewalker said:

This may not make sense without superior visualizing skills or pix. Heres Dr. Electron's version:

electron.tailfeatherz.com/c22.html

That's pretty slick, although with the drilling/tapping/etc. involved, it'd be a project "not entered into lightly."

Teak sounds kinda interesting, too. We can get into the "tonewoods" discussion from a whole 'nother angle.

[Mini-Strat_Maine]

runewalker said:

You are trying to essentially turn the body, wood wedges and inertia block into a monolithic substrate. I find the more multisyllabic words you use the more it sounds like you know what you are talking about, in spite of any reality to the contrary.

Another !

The Monolithic Substrate would be a good name for a rock band. {/Dave Barry mode}

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur." ("Anything is more impressive if you say it in Latin." [And more, at www.buddycom.com/entertain/veejay/vj05.html.])

[Ripper]

I was told to use the same wood as the guitar your blocking with the wood grain running in the same direction. I tried it, but opted for a little whamming now and then.

[inducedblues]

Blocking the tremelo on a strat... why would you do this?

I mean I know why but it seems to me that a hardtail strat is like a Les Paul with a tremolo and single coils....it just don't seem right.

It's like pinning a bridge on an archtop or like using distortion with an acoustic guitar or miking a solid state amp or like um...you get the idea.

[Ripper]

It suppose to give you more sustain because youd then have more mass. The more wood you have near the bridge, the more wood to vibrate = more sustain. I feel theres much more to sustaining a Stratocaster then that. Thats why I have a 70's Strat with the large headstock and the thick neck. Its the total package thatll give you the sustain you desire. The newer Strats with the thin necks and small headstocks do not sustain early as much as the early 70's style. I know this to be a fact because I did alot of testing and re-testing before I decided which Strat I wanted. Another person who feels the same way I do about the sustain of the 70's Strat is Yngwie Malmsteen, thats why its his axe of choice as well. Im not a huge fan of his style of music, but the man is truly a gifted guitar player.

[inducedblues]

I also love 70's strats...they are the best kinda strat there is.. Not just in terms of looks but as deepblue says the sustain is better in my opinion. Plus it just feels more balanced to me.

I just feel like you get a strat for the strat sound which includes the effect the trem has on the overall tone.

[UnklMickey]

deepblue said:

It suppose to give you more sustain because youd then have more mass. The more wood you have near the bridge, the more wood to vibrate = more sustain. I feel theres much more to sustaining a Stratocaster then that. Thats why I have a 70's Strat with the large headstock and the thick neck. Its the total package thatll give you the sustain you desire. The newer Strats with the thin necks and small headstocks do not sustain early as much as the early 70's style. I know this to be a fact because I did alot of testing and re-testing before I decided which Strat I wanted. Another person who feels the same way I do about the sustain of the 70's Strat is Yngwie Malmsteen, thats why its his axe of choice as well. Im not a huge fan of his style of music, but the man is truly a gifted guitar player.

Blue,

i don't disagree with your conclusions, but i have a different opinion on your equation and analysis.

my theory is: tone, sustain, and resonance are 3 related, but very different quantities.

sustain is dependent on minimizing losses, or artificially injecting energy back into the strings.

to minimize losses, the acoustic sound produced will necessarily be small.

we don't want the wood around the bridge or anywhere else, to vibrate at all.

the more it does, the more energy is lost from the string.

a 'Pauls has more sustain than a Strat, and either one has more than a 335 could ever dream of.

but you can barely hear what you are playing, unless you plug a 'Paul in.

what you can hear, though, does seem to "go on forever".


it's my opinion that the wood in a 'Paul is doing very little vibrating at all.

but that's just my theory.



unk

[Runewalker]

deepblue said:

I was told to use the same wood as the guitar your blocking with the wood grain running in the same direction. I tried it, but opted for a little whamming now and then.

In that senario you would use a relatively small profile of wood where end grain cuts would interface with the inertia block and the back of the rout, plus the front of the rout in floyds and 2 pivot units.

I know of no real scientifically conductied test on the relative benefits of end grain matching vs. long grain to end-grain interfaces.

However, it is hard for me to generate a rational that would substantiate a hearable difference between these approaches. I would lean towards a long-grain orientation because and end grain wedge would be easier to split at the tension points.

The end-grain idea is something someone came up with in the tonewood school of thought, and that is a whole other set of arguments. Mostly or at least nearly immaterial in solid body electrics.

[Runewalker]

inducedblues said:

Blocking the tremolo on a strat... why would you do this?

I mean I know why but it seems to me that a hardtail strat is like a Les Paul with a tremolo and single coils....it just don't seem right.

It's like pinning a bridge on an archtop or like using distortion with an acoustic guitar or miking a solid state amp or like um...you get the idea.

Hitching a ride on Unk's comments.....

Freezing a trem on a strat is not the same as a hardtail strat. So much substrata is hogged out of a trem-ed strat in the pup routs, the spring cavity routs, the trem rout and the control cavity rout it is almost a "solid body acoustic" guitar. Whereas a hardtail is closer to a real solid-body, with the exception of the additional string vibration dissipation conveyed by the structurally looser coupling in a bolt on neck and the top routing of the control cavity -- then lets not forget the fundamental of the pickguard toneplastic.

So a hardtail is not as monolithically stable in string coupling as a Les Paul, with its greater mass, stable neck joint, back routing and double coupled bridge structure. A hardtail with -hums will not sound exactly like a LesPaul, but certainly more so than a TremFrozen strat with -hums.

Supposedly Eric Clapton block or device freezes his trems opposed to going the Robert Cray route of a hardtail, because he prefers the less vibrationally stable sound of a blocked trem opposed to the more substantive coupling of a hardtail.

I A/B tested a strat last night with the same -hum as an LP and the tonal difference were demonstrable, even with the same pickups.

It is important to be careful about extending the key principles of resonance in acoustic instruments to solid body electrics. Your analogies to acoustics do not correlate to solid-body electrics because in SB electrics the design objective is towards eliminating resonance rather than fostering it. Although most guitarist don't believe that. They find the characteristics of resonance induced vibrational dissipation in strats somehow preferable. But all that lack of density and coupling instability actually diminishes string vibration longevity. And that is then interpreted as pleasing, and leads to the fallacy that resonance in an electric is somehow a good thing.

One reason in the 50's that the entry level ES175, made with a laminated top - opposed to the real carved tops of the expensive Gibby archtops, became the preferred jazz box is that the stiffer laminate top had less resonance and was more stable as an amplified instrument. Les Paul, the man, realized that resonance was the Antichrist in electrified instruments and replaced the archtop with a log.

So blocking a trem is partially about tuning stability, but also about reducing vibrational dissipation. And I don't know exactly why, but it also seems to improve intonation precision.

[sumgai]

Rune,

Well thought out piece there, just above. Nice work, but then again, from you, we expect no less.

So blocking a trem is partially about tuning stability, but also about reducing vibrational dissipation. And I don't know exactly why, but it also seems to improve intonation precision.

The improvement in intonation speaks to the same stability as what's provided for the overall tuning. The "platform" is much less susceptable to micro-movements, thus you can dial in the adjustment screws with less need to be careful of jiggling something (usually the bridge itself). When you're done with that, you can then play without upsetting the actual length of the string by virtue of the fact that the bridge never moved in the first place, so it didn't have to "return" to just the right spot.


sumgai

[Runewalker]

sumgai said:

Rune,

Well thought out piece there, just above. Nice work, but then again, from you, we expect no less.

sumgai

Well thank you SomeDude. You're showing your kinder gentler self. I better stop there or I might be tempted to say something positive about gig bags and be drawn [and quatered] into the maelstrom and fire storm from that little thread. Whew! However I did enjoy the reverb tank cover idea.

[Ripper]

Hey Unk...Again this is my opinion as you know. If solid body guitars didnt vibrate as they do, youd lose alot of your sustain. The three points of string contact on a guitar are the bridge, the nut and the tuning pegs. These are the crucial points if you value your sustain as I do. The pickups dont just get their signals from the vibrating string, they get it from the wood all around it. Thats why guys like EVH and such insist their pups be screwed directly to the body of the guitar, not just mounted to the pick guard ala Strat. Its true as you say a Les Paul is not very audible unless plugged in, but there is still alot of vibration the trouble is we as humans canot hear the frequencies because our ears are not designed to hear them. Try strunmming a solid body guitar unplugged. Now strum it again and put the headstock onto a bannister, or a chair. Youll hear what the hidden vibration is trying to say. Thats why I say that the bridge, nut and headstock and all the wood in direct contact with them are extremely important to overall sustain. They are the what the strings rely on the receive its ripple....That sounded deep huh?

[Runewalker]

deepblue said:

Hey Unk...Again this is my opinion as you know. If solid body guitars didn't vibrate as they do, you'd lose alot of your sustain. ......... The pickups dint just get their signals from the vibrating string, they get it from the wood all around it. Thats why guys like EVH and such insist their pups be screwed directly to the body of the guitar,......Try strunmming a solid body guitar unplugged. Now strum it again and put the headstock onto a banister, or a chair. You'll hear what the hidden vibration is trying to say. Thats why I say that the bridge, nut and headstock and all the wood in direct contact with them are extremely important to overall sustain. They are the what the strings rely on the receive its ripple....That sounded deep huh?

Let's wade through this deepness, DeepBlue. If, as you say your goal is sustain, than the statement --"If solid body guitars didn't vibrate as they do, you'd lose alot of your sustain" is exactly what you don't want. Vibration in the wood would act like a shock absorber and dampen or dissipate the vibration of the string, which is from which your string related sustain derives (apart from sympathetic vibrational sustain from a loud amp feeding back air wave vibrations back into the string).

Imagine you have 2 identical cars, one with shocks and one with the suspension parts all welded together into one solid undercarriage. You take both to your local strip mall that has speed bumps every 50 yards. late at night. First you race around the lane with the speed bumps at 35mph in the car with shocks. Unpleasant bumps but you are still able to control the car. Then you do the same thing with the welded suspension. Teeth Jarring, jangle ride. Once you hit the speed bump the whole car continues bounding until it finally subsides and you barely keep control or lose control and run into the plate glass of your girlfriend/wife/ex' favorite store.

In this analogy the car with no shocks has very strong coupling and nothing except the inflated tires to dissipate the "vibration" incurred from hitting the speed bump. The car with shock sets up dampening forces to reduce and counter the vibration from hitting the bump.

The car with no shocks is a guitar made of forged steel. The bridge, body, nut, and turner pegs are one monolith of substructure that will sustain string vibration substantially longer than a wood bodied guitar.

The car with shocks is the wood body guitar where the wood's propensity to "resonate" provides dampening dissipation to the string vibration.

Your headstock to banister husbandry extends the mass of the guitar and assists the headstock in vibrating less, thus reducing dampening of the string vibration.

When you mention the trinity of string contact, bridge-nut-tuners, the string vibrational sustain is enhanced by the strength and integrity of the coupling of these connect points, and the mass and density of the substrata (guitar). If you want more sustain build the guitar out of a monolithic dense material.

Wood was chosen as a material for guitars because that is the legacy of guitar building, it is easily machined, relatively inexpensive, and what people expect when you say, Guitar.

But there are number of materials that have been used and could be used. Many that dissipate energy less than wood.

And the pickups to wood thing..... EVH and others do it because they have faith it makes a difference. I am unaware of any oscilloscope testing of this theory, and perhaps it does make a difference. I suspect belief over substance, however.

Wood will affect the sound, because different species, and even different samples within a species, dissipate vibration differently, and different guitarists like different dissipation characteristics.

In fact, an infinitely sustaining guitar would be sort of a pain in that sometimes you want string vibrational decay.

The only magic in wood is that it is not uniform in its sound properties, so there is the constant treasure hunt for one with magic.

A major contribution to "sustain" or decay is the integrity of the coupling. I have seen Tuno and Stop pieces, whose posts were screwed into bushings loosely seated. When the bushing to wood seating was improved the "sustain" markedly improved. Same guitar, different sound with a minor adjustment to coupling integrity. Much of your argument is more about coupling than the substrata materials (wood).

[Ripper]

Runewalker...If you could somehow secure all 6 string of an electric guitar between 2 vices. Then place a guitar underneath the strings positioning the pups as required directly below the strings ( remember the 6 strings suspended above are a separate unit, they are not in any way attatched to the guitar below )...Now strum. Do you think youd get the same sustain that youd get if the strings were attatched to the guitar?...no, youd get a weak unimpressive sound that dies off quickly. Why you ask?...Its the wood that makes it good! I believe thats the Kenny Rogers chicken slogan, but I feel it applies here.