Post by sumgai on Jul 13, 2007 2:15:55 GMT -5
Posting a suggestion in jkemmery's thread over in the Hock Shop, I mentioned this little jewel: www.pointtremolo.com
Chris chimed in like so: (side note: I can't summarily split a thread, so I've done it the hard way, like so......)
His "Point" design seems to move the fulcrum under the saddle, reducing the secondary lever length resulting in about 25% more frequency change (gee, there's a clue) for the same movement on a tremo'Leo.
This also results in a greatly reduced bridge height variation as compared to the frequency modulating traditional tremo'Leo.
I remain somewhat unconvinced (I have not vetted their patents/design as to mechanical effect) of the design completely eliminating any fulcrum shifting (the bane of the vintage 6 screw vibrato).
(I find it interesting that Fender calls their mechanical pitch changing bridge thingy(s) a tremolo, but calls the Bigsby mechanical pitch changing bridge thingy a vibrato. Of course, Fender has electronic amplitude changing amp circuit thingy(s) that they call VibroWhatevers.
Amplitude Modulation (AM, level) is Tremolo.
Frequency Modulation (FM, pitch) is Vibrato.
If you want vibrato on your guitar, operate that there bridge lever thingy (you know, the Vammy bar).
If you want tremolo on your guitar, rapidly twiddle your (volume) knob.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrato
"Confusingly, vibrato is sometimes referred to as tremolo, notably in the context of a tremolo arm of an electric guitar, which produces variations of pitch although true tremolo is a periodic fluctuation in the amplitude (rather than the frequency) of a sound. Conversely, the so-called vibrato unit built in to many guitar amplifiers produces what is known as tremolo in all other contexts. See vibrato unit for a detailed discussion of this terminology reversal."
To avoid any further confusion, I'm going with the Tremo'Leo and the Vibrolo. These will be used inter-wrongly since most bits are insignificant today anyway.
And my response is:
Chris,
I did a preliminary analysis on this thing, and got all balled up with life and such. So I turned it over to the GF, who's an ME by profession, quite unlike my nearly amateur attempts at it. She says that it probably shouldn't have earned the patent (she holds four of them herownself), due to it being a simple and obvious modification of prior art (Leo's original idea).
It works as you describe, but the only thing that can't be determined, and the big reason it would need a hands-on investigation, is the balance of string/spring tension. IOW, does it return to true pitch as claimed........ every time, as claimed.
Personally, I always thought that the fulcrum point should be directly under the string breakover point, and that it should be a bar fully as long as the inertia block is wide, not just a pair of tiny points. Those two small contact areas are just begging to kill any and all possible vibration transmission from the strings/bridge to the body.
The facing material should be a composite nylon/teflon material that wears well while maintaining a certain viscosity at all normally seen temperatures. That full surface area should work to allow the strong passage of string vibrations into the body proper. Or at least, that's the goal.
And when we're done hashing this one out, I've got another new vibrato tailpiece to bring to the table........ ;D
sumgai
Chris chimed in like so: (side note: I can't summarily split a thread, so I've done it the hard way, like so......)
chrisk said:
No, it's properly called a tremo'Leo.His "Point" design seems to move the fulcrum under the saddle, reducing the secondary lever length resulting in about 25% more frequency change (gee, there's a clue) for the same movement on a tremo'Leo.
This also results in a greatly reduced bridge height variation as compared to the frequency modulating traditional tremo'Leo.
I remain somewhat unconvinced (I have not vetted their patents/design as to mechanical effect) of the design completely eliminating any fulcrum shifting (the bane of the vintage 6 screw vibrato).
(I find it interesting that Fender calls their mechanical pitch changing bridge thingy(s) a tremolo, but calls the Bigsby mechanical pitch changing bridge thingy a vibrato. Of course, Fender has electronic amplitude changing amp circuit thingy(s) that they call VibroWhatevers.
Amplitude Modulation (AM, level) is Tremolo.
Frequency Modulation (FM, pitch) is Vibrato.
If you want vibrato on your guitar, operate that there bridge lever thingy (you know, the Vammy bar).
If you want tremolo on your guitar, rapidly twiddle your (volume) knob.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrato
"Confusingly, vibrato is sometimes referred to as tremolo, notably in the context of a tremolo arm of an electric guitar, which produces variations of pitch although true tremolo is a periodic fluctuation in the amplitude (rather than the frequency) of a sound. Conversely, the so-called vibrato unit built in to many guitar amplifiers produces what is known as tremolo in all other contexts. See vibrato unit for a detailed discussion of this terminology reversal."
To avoid any further confusion, I'm going with the Tremo'Leo and the Vibrolo. These will be used inter-wrongly since most bits are insignificant today anyway.
And my response is:
Chris,
I did a preliminary analysis on this thing, and got all balled up with life and such. So I turned it over to the GF, who's an ME by profession, quite unlike my nearly amateur attempts at it. She says that it probably shouldn't have earned the patent (she holds four of them herownself), due to it being a simple and obvious modification of prior art (Leo's original idea).
It works as you describe, but the only thing that can't be determined, and the big reason it would need a hands-on investigation, is the balance of string/spring tension. IOW, does it return to true pitch as claimed........ every time, as claimed.
Personally, I always thought that the fulcrum point should be directly under the string breakover point, and that it should be a bar fully as long as the inertia block is wide, not just a pair of tiny points. Those two small contact areas are just begging to kill any and all possible vibration transmission from the strings/bridge to the body.
The facing material should be a composite nylon/teflon material that wears well while maintaining a certain viscosity at all normally seen temperatures. That full surface area should work to allow the strong passage of string vibrations into the body proper. Or at least, that's the goal.
And when we're done hashing this one out, I've got another new vibrato tailpiece to bring to the table........ ;D
sumgai
, players don't want any more complexity than absolutely necessary.