General question on strat design

[treguiers]

Hi,
Can someone explain why fender slanted the bridge
pup the way they did. It would seem to me that
if it was slanted the other way i.e. the bass end closer
to the bridge, there would be more twang from the
bass and less of the treble strings cutting the
ears off ya.
I often wonder is that some of the reason Jimi
hendrix had such a good tone.
In fact my next project after i go at JohnH's strat
will be to buy a blank scratch plate.

[cynical1]

At the time the first Strats came out Fender's bread and butter was a Telecaster. Which also slants the bridge with the higher strings closet towards the bridge.

Most sales of electric guitars at Fender were going to County players who appreciated and utilized the twang to retched excess. There is a slight advantage in that the lower strings don't completely twang out.

Honestly, the tonal differences are slight. Personally, I route my pickups opposite to the traditional Fender formula. Mainly just to be contrary, but most people don't notice anyway.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[newey]

You don't have to buy a blank pickguard, Warmoth (and others) make 'em with the reversed slant at the bridge if desired.

Cyn is right, the difference is slight.

On my recently (and finally!) completed 4caster, the 4 pickups slant progressively from the neck pup, which is 90° to the strings all the way to the bridge, which is slanted at the standard Fender angle. ChrisK did a CAD drawing for me to use as a template to cut the 2 middle pickup holes in the "progessive slant", and I doubt I could have done it without his help.

[JFrankParnell]

I've been wondering lately about the spacing of poles vs string spacing vs pup angle. For each pole to be under a string, the spacing would have to be wider if the pup was angled. Are bridge pups designed with this in mind? Or is all that geometry insignificant?

[4real]

I did a little reseach and have read a bit and got quie a few bboks on Leo's work around here, he really was an interesing guy who along with Les did so much to shape the instrument. In leo's case many things were for production and aesthetics or just the way he thought about things...some things were reat innovations, other...hmmm...but he was pretty good at coming up with things and took advice from a lot of players...generally country guys at the time.

But, if you google it you will get any number of theories. There is not really a lot of difference.

Frank raises an interesting quetion. Originals were all identical pickups. As you get closer to the bridge the vibrations are smaller and a bit more power is generally desirable to compensate as is generally done these days.

A lot of fender pickups are different for the bridge, slightly longer and wider spaced to accommodate the slant and htat the strings are widening out towards the bridge anyway. This is a happy situation though, as the length of wire is longer and multiplied by thousands of turns, creates a more powerful wind and desirable added ommph to the bridge pup without resorting to thinner wire or deeper bobbins and all that.

A lot of stuff leo did was adapted from technology that was available to him at the time, radio and like circuits adapted for his guitar amps or the use of telephone exchange blade switches as the selector.

But then, he had a particular take on what he was trying to achieve and his own ear...generally a very bright sounding clean guitar and amp set up. I'm not sure that he ever really adapted to what the guitar was fast becoming...but his ideas were so adaptable.

It's a similar thing with Les Paul, the guitar that bears his name was designed as a clean jazz guitar with added sustain and playability. That it is now associated with heavier tones and styles is a matter of history. The fact is that when I was playing an LP exclusively, they are capable of playing any kind of music clean or dirty (unless modded to be extremely over powered). He of course did his own thing with it, going towards even cleaner low impedance set ups and the like...but the world was moving in a different direction and no one followed him down that road.

The guitar world, especially the electric guitar (not so much in the bass that Leo invented or the acoustic guitar to some degree even) is so conservative and how astonishing these early pioneers were to create something so new and yet so right and adaptable...it really is tricky to 'improve' upon the things.

My strat has an HB in it, so no pups are slanted, the two tone HB gives the impression at first glance of 3 unslanted SC and looks the part and makes a 'strat-y' sound...there really is little difference in the angle so much. But there is some cool factor in the JH reversed slant and a lot of people do it...perhaps to be contrary as much as anything and a bit of a homage there.

There is a lot to be said for Hendrix turning the entire thing up side down. If you watch him play, he had to constantly adjust tuning and by having the tuners under the headstock, he was able to reach them mid performance without having to reach 'over the top' to make adjustments along the way.

A lot of the sylistic 'innovations' of the 80's particularly was just fashion and often detrimental to the functionality of the original designs. The pointy hocky stick may seemed like a cool look, but it destroyed the straight string pull that fender devised in the 6 in line that was such an innovation....ahh, the 80's, hmmm...all show, hairspray and spandex.