hardtail bridges

[simes]

I have string-through S-type hardtail bridge on a Strat, which I'm very happy with. However, just for a change, I am considering an adjustable wraparound bridge such as the Schaller 455 for a new build. I realise that the wraparound would require either a neck angle or recessing for height reasons.

I wonder what, if any, is the real difference in string vibration transfer between the two types, i.e. plate flat against body + screws + string pull vs. two large posts sunk into the body. I would assume the former would be superior in theory, but in practice I wonder if it is really appreciable.

There also seems to be a certain amount of debate between aluminium wraparounds and heavier metals.

Does anyone have any experience of these matters? Does it really make a big difference to sound, or is it all just cork-sniffing? Opinions?

Cheers,

Simon

[roadtonever]

IME it's not corksniffing, it alters the tone in that a heaver metal will seem to produce more bass. I read an account of a player baffled by a hardtail strats that sounded inferior to an equivalent trem equipped strat and the theory put forward was the sheer weigth of the trem assembley helped move the wood. Or something like that. There's also the aspect of coupling, I once replaced the bridge posts, without changing anything else, on my Les Paul copy and was stunned by the improvement in tone. Somehow it brought forward the sweet lower-upper-mids. The old post weren't a tight fit and the new ones might have been a slightly denser steel. FWIW

[reTrEaD]

Dec 15, 2011 6:57:44 GMT -5 simes said:

There also seems to be a certain amount of debate between aluminium wraparounds and heavier metals.

Metallurgy probably plays a factor, but construction techniques do, as well.

One of the nicest features of the traditional wraparound is that it's "monolithic". We have one solid chunk of metal that transfers the vibration through the interface with the posts, then to the body. All 6 string ends have a common connection point.

With the wraparounds that have adjustable saddles, we have a less solid interface between the strings and the bridge itself. I dunno how big a role that plays, but it's definitely not the same.

The other factor is comfort. Rest the heel of your picking hand against a traditional wraparound. It's very easy to shift between muting and not. There is a continuity between the sections of the "saddle ridge". No sharp corners or deep gaps.

[simes]

Yeah, I can imagine that a brass bridge and an aluminium one would produce significantly different tones. That was kind of an afterthought to my first post.

In my case, the hardtail Strat bridge with string-through ferrules sounds much better than the original trem, which wasn't lightweight or poor quality, just ... average, I suppose.

My query was more to do with people's experience with wraparounds compared to hardtails, although - now that I think of it - I don't know to what extent the Schaller I mentioned can be considered a true wraparound.

[simes]

ReTread, you posted as I was writing.

That's a good point regarding the tradtional vs the adjustable wraparounds, which probably have more in common with a TOM/stopbar.

Comfort-wise, I'm used to traditional Strat bridges, so the heel of my hand is like leather ...

[reTrEaD]

The adjustable wraparounds still transfer the vibrations through large posts. And the bridge and string terminations share the connection to the body, unlike the tuno/stop. So it falls somewhere between.

The nice thing about a strat bridge is the adjustable saddle height. That allows you to easily match the radius of your bridge to the radius of your fretboard. The bad thing is those setscrews chewing into your hand. I've been meaning to grind my setscrews down so the tops screws are flush with the top of the bridge. Maybe someday...

[cynical1]

Schaller made wraparounds for a few people. It was developed more as a time and cost saver then anything else to OEMs.

IMHO, anything Schaller will generally be superior to everything else out there.

The tone considerations mentioned are all valid, but tone is subjective. Mass has an effect, but the break over and precision of the bridge can have a stronger influence then the mass.

One thing to consider, depending on the guitar you're putting this on, is the fretboard radius. Most Tune-o-Matic bridges have a 12" radius. Oddly enough, most Gibson guitars have a neck radius or 10". A good tech will file the saddle to accommodate this difference. It is murder on your nut files, but does even out the action. The problem is exacerbated when putting tune-0-Matics on Fender radiused necks...IE 9-1/2" and 7-1/2"

My preference for Schaller one piece Tune-o-Matics is the one with the fine tuners...like this one:



Happy Trails

Cynical One

[fenderbender]

There's one Schaller I have my eye on for a future build. Here's a guitar with the bridge on it and being played. Just another option for hardtails.

[roadtonever]

You won't need to think about the neck angle if you countersink the bridge assembly a la Carvin.

Heres yet another option for you to consider:
Standard plate type hardtail strat bridge with a trem toneblock stuck under it. The amount of metal would be the same as a T-o-M assembly.

Either way, is there a specific goal in or it more an academic excersize? You implied that you want good tone but that's a damn subjective thing and simly going by whats hip at the moment might leave you feeling missled. Also every piece of wood responds differently.

[reTrEaD]

Dec 15, 2011 14:39:27 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

One thing to consider, depending on the guitar you're putting this on, is the fretboard radius. Most Tune-o-Matic bridges have a 12" radius. Oddly enough, most Gibson guitars have a neck radius or 10".

More than odd, really. More like "what were they thinking?"

[newey]

simes originally said:

I realise that the wraparound would require either a neck angle or recessing for height reasons.

And these operations will affect the mating of the neck to the body in the one case, or of the bridge to the body for the other.

You won't be comparing the tone of your guitar now to your guitar with a new bridge, you'll be comparing your guitar now to your guitar after it has been modified to accept the new bridge. Apples and Oranges.

On recessing the bridge, how well this is done will affect the bridge/body interface. And without the proper tools it could be easy to screw that up.

[reTrEaD]

Pretty sure this is a new build, so I don't think comparing before and after would be possible anyway.

I'm not a big fan of recessed TOMs. They look a bit out of place. And this bridge covers a lot more real estate than a TOM. So the recess would be quite a large lake. Then again, ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

[cynical1]

Recessing a TOM is not impossible, but if this is a new build you're going to have some math ahead of you before you screw everything together. If you're planning this for a Strat you may have some machining to do or you'll punch the studs right through the bottom of the guitar.

Using a TOM on a Strat is not impossible, but it will require a lot more work, IMHO, then the benefits you will achieve.

The Les Paul has, generally, a lot more heavy wood to allow the TOM to do what it does. A Strat, on the other hand, has no arch, is smaller physically and shallower then a Paul. It also come with a 9-1/2" radius standard...so you'll be filing the low E and A and high B and E saddles for a while to achieve a proper radius.

There is also a difference between width of the fingerboard at the heel. Gibson is nominally 2-1/8", where Fender is nominally 2-3/16"...which also means your string spread will be different at the bridge with a TOM versus a fixed or trem Fender tailpiece.

So, if you're keeping the 25.5" scale length, you'll be narrower with the TOM then the traditional Fender tailpiece\trems.

Ergo, there's a reason you don't see too many TOMs on Strats...

If you're looking for a change from the bridge you have, and you like Schaller, I would recommend the Schaller 3D6:



IMHO, it's the best bridge for the money out there. Adjustable rollers allow adjustment in every conceivable direction, and it's just very well made. It's the only hard tail Strat type bridge I use.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[simes]

Yep, new build. Flat top, Strat depth, 12" fingerboard radius, 25-1/2" scale, Fender string spread. Not a Strat, though ...

I take note of the above useful comments, and I thank you all for taking time to make them. A few things I hadn't considered.

The Schaller 3D6 (would that be 477?) had caught my eye before, but I'd ruled it out as not being string-through.

So, if I may, I'll redirect the debate: string-through vs. toploader, anyone?

[simes]

I may have spoken too soon: schaller-electronic.com/hp222322/Schaller-Bridge-3D-6.htm

[newey]

Sorry, simes, you started talking about your hard-tailed Strat and I missed the part about the new build.

If you do want to go the TOM route (rout?), I believe that both Warmoth and Carvin will supply you a body pre-routed for a recessed TOM bridge- Strat type body in the case of Warmoth, other styles as well from Carvin .

But adding all the custom bells and whistles onto their body order form starts to get pretty pricey. Sounds like you already either have a body or have something specific in mind, however.

[lpf3]

Dec 15, 2011 19:15:05 GMT -5 simes said:

So, if I may, I'll redirect the debate: string-through vs. toploader, anyone?

I have 2 Squiers that originally came with top loaders and I converted to string-thru, and wasn't impressed much. Loading the strings thru the body is supposed to add "sustain" but I didn't notice an audible difference.

I changed both guitars back to top loaders with brass saddles & IMO that's where the best bang-for-your-buck is; not necessarily with "sustain", but I hear improved clarity. Or, I want to hear improved clarity- so I do.

I think the biggest difference is in playability, and I think this is where your playing style would affect your preference:

By loading the strings thru the body you add 1 3/4" or so to the string length so the strings are tighter when tuned to pitch. IMO it makes the action too stiff & I don't like the way the strings feel under my fingers. I know that classical players ( & probably shredders) like tighter string action (and longer scale lengths) because they play a lot of fast, complicated passages & tighter strings return to "normal" faster after being plucked- making it easier to play fast. Tighter strings also contribute to the classic Fender "snap".

I don't play all that fast & favor more of a bluesy style - I like to slur my notes alot- for me a looser, slinkier action is better. Give me a top loader every time.

Of course, as always- YMMV. Hope that helps.


-lpf3

[ashcatlt]

Dec 16, 2011 9:32:49 GMT -5 lpf3 said:

By loading the strings thru the body you add 1 3/4" or so to the string length so the strings are tighter when tuned to pitch.

This doesn't seem to follow for me. That extra length is added to the non-vibrating length of the string. It's all on the far side of the saddle, and has nothing to do with scale length. It shouldn't affect string tension at all. Am I missing something?

[lpf3]

Dec 16, 2011 10:01:11 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

Dec 16, 2011 9:32:49 GMT -5 lpf3 said:

By loading the strings thru the body you add 1 3/4" or so to the string length so the strings are tighter when tuned to pitch.

This doesn't seem to follow for me. That extra length is added to the non-vibrating length of the string. It's all on the far side of the saddle, and has nothing to do with scale length. It shouldn't affect string tension at all. Am I missing something?

I think the tautness of the string has to be measured from end to end- the part behind the nut & saddle aren't in the playable scale length but they still have to be tightened. That might be a bit of an assumption but it does make sense to me.

I do know that the difference on the same guitar is enough to be immediately noticeable - playability wise.


-lpf3

[cynical1]

I'm pretty much with lpf3 on this one. I've had string through basses and top loaders and found no real appreciable difference going string through.

In fact, on most designs from manufacturers who claim high quality, you need to flare the holes from the body into the tailpiece towards the saddles to keep the sharp edges from prematurely breaking strings.

The top loaders are quicker to restring...especially in a luminance challenged venue...

Some top loaders do not provide enough break over into the saddle from where the ball end locks into the tailpiece. This will cause ugly tonal side effects.

Again, most of this is preference, or perceived advantage. I've tried more then my share over the years and have my preferences based on function and performance to cash output ratio.

From a builder's perspective, top loaders remove several steps from the build.

The Schaller 3D6, as you saw from the link you posted, can go either way.

It really comes down to what works best on your build without complicating the process merely for the sake of complicating the process.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[reTrEaD]

Dec 16, 2011 11:18:11 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

Some top loaders do not provide enough break over into the saddle from where the ball end locks into the tailpiece. This will cause ugly tonal side effects.

Yes. This might be the reason many perceive string-thru as being better. Comparing a string-thru to a poorly designed top-loader will result in a clear winner. But for the wrong reason.

Dec 16, 2011 10:01:11 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

Dec 16, 2011 9:32:49 GMT -5 lpf3 said:

By loading the strings thru the body you add 1 3/4" or so to the string length so the strings are tighter when tuned to pitch.

This doesn't seem to follow for me. That extra length is added to the non-vibrating length of the string. It's all on the far side of the saddle, and has nothing to do with scale length. It shouldn't affect string tension at all. Am I missing something?

I agree. The only thing missing is what it takes to achieve the same tension.

It won't matter if the length beyond the saddle is an inch or a mile. The tension will be exactly the same, to achieve the same pitch if the string gauge and the vibrating length are the same.

But how far you have to turn the tuner will be greater, if you add length to the non-vibrating portion of the string. And how far you have to bend to change the pitch will increase, with additional non-vibrating length.

[sumgai]

Dec 16, 2011 11:57:13 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

But how far you have to turn the tuner will be greater, if you add length to the non-vibrating portion of the string. And how far you have to bend to change the pitch will increase, with additional non-vibrating length.

As I think gumbo will attest, pedal steel guitarists have known this for years.

BTW, rT that was a succinctly put treatise on the topic - a +1 for you.

[simes]

I must say, I've never A/B'd a toploader and a string through on identical guitars.

When I converted my Strat to hardtail I certainly noticed an increase in perceived tautness and real increase in sustain and snappiness.

That version of the Schaller 3D6 that I posted seems to offer a third option of kind of hooking the ball-ends under the lip of the string-through holes. I can't really see any advantage in that over the standard toploader holes ... maybe saving a few crucial milliseconds in a mid-solo string change?

The thing that is bothering me most is value for money. Let's see.

The hardtail I've got in my Strat is this one: www.guitarfetish.com/Chrome-Hardtail-Bridge-for-Teles-and-Strats_p_158.html
USD 10.95, and I can't really fault it.

Then there's this one, for example: www.thomann.de/es/goeldo_diego_deluxe_bridge_strat_cn.htm
Works out at about USD 25.90 at today's rate, supposedly made in Germany, although they don't categorically state that.

Then we have: www.stewmac.com/shop/Bridges,_tailpieces/Electric_guitar,_non-trem_bridges/Gotoh_Hardtail_Bridge.html
USD 44, Japanese-made, presumably.

And finally we have: www.stewmac.com/shop/Bridges,_tailpieces/Electric_guitar,_non-trem_bridges/Schaller_Non-Tremolo_Roller_Bridge.html
The one we've already discussed, USD 76, German-made, nice-looking design.

The first three are basically the same bridge. As I said, I have the first one on my Strat. It has no sharp edges, a nice finish, flared string-through holes, etc. I can't imagine what the Gotoh offers to cost 4 times as much. I can understand that the Göldo could cost twice as much if it is indeed made in Germany.

The 4th is obviously a more expensive piece, with an attractive design, a symmetrical 3+3 saddle thing, rollers and a locking screw, plus it's made in Germany. So I guess that could be worth USD 76 ...

Cheers,

Simon

[cynical1]

I just scored a Schaller 3D6 on eBay for $28.00 and change. The one before that was around $38.00 and change, with the shim. They don't show up much, but you can definitely do better then $76.00.

LMI has them for sale at $62.15 in chrome.

And yes, they are made in Germany. Like most things, you get what you pay for. The bridge is one of the more critical items on your guitar. Skimping here to save $20.00 or $30.00 is a false economy.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[simes]

Thanks for that LMI link, C1.

I do agree that you generally get what you pay for (I am a purchaser in my day job), within certain limits.

I think the Goldo bridge is probably made in China. Why is it twice the price of the Guitarfetish one? Maybe more expensive material, maybe better quality control, or they get better delivery time or better reliability from the manufacturer ... or maybe the Guitarfetish people know the purchasing market better, or buy out the production of small factories ... who knows?

If the Gotoh is made in Japan, then I suppose that would imply better quality control than the Chinese ones.

Does any of this translate into better tone or performance (I'm talking about the above three, not the Schaller), as long as all the manufacturers have realised that certain materials and finishes must be used, certain dimensions should be observed and stuff like sharp edges and frequent string breakages is to be avoided? I doubt it.

There are certain products I buy in Korea that I would not currently buy in China for quality reasons. There are other products that I used to buy in Korea but now buy in China (no longer made in Korea, in fact) and are as good quality now as the Korean ones were. Certain products are not rocket science, and I would include basic Strat-type hardtail bridges in that category.

Cheers,

Simon

[cynical1]

You're entirely welcome for the link. And I was in Purchasing for a while myself. I learned a valuable lesson.

There are three things you can have as a consumer of Goods and Services:

1.) Absolute highest quality.

2.) Absolute fastest delivery.

3.) Absolute lowest price.

Now, pick two.

As you say, there are probably many factors in the price disparity between the bridges you mention. From my experience, Japanese parts have always been good, and some of them are as good as the Germans.

Korean parts can be hit or miss. Most are copies of tried and true existing designs.

Hate me for saying it, but Chinese parts are garbage for the most part...especially the ones they sub out to Viet Nam.

One point I think you've forgotten is innovation. Schaller has been around for a very long time and is constantly imitated in their designs. They still innovate, test and improve their product offerings. This costs money for R & D. And, being Germans, it's a given they suffer a wage imbalance with their Asian competitors.

Myself, if I have the option to just buy cheap copied designs and run, versus supporting a company that has consistently offered a quality product, and continues to introduce new products, as well as make improvements and enhancements to their existing lines, well, my money is going to Germany.

Seen any Asian Hannes bridges yet? You will...

Happy Trails

Cynical One

[lpf3]

I have 2 of the Gotoh hardtails from Stew- Mac, currently slated for a couple of T- style builds of mine.

I can't speak for the other bridges that you linked to but I can speak highly of the Gotohs. First, they're brass plates & saddles, which I like, & the chrome plating is beautiful. The string thru holes are nicely rounded at the edges- no sharp edges & no burrs anywhere. They're quite substantial without being too heavy-although they're probably too heavy for the "lightweight bridges are better" crowd. All in all I'm very pleased with the quality. I haven't finished the builds yet so I can't speak for them in action but I think I'll be happy with them.



-lpf3

[cynical1]

As long as you mentioned Gotoh, they make a Tune-o-Matic bridge, 510 FB, that is unique:

It's the only Tune-o-Matic bridge that the saddles have individual height adjustments...that doesn't cost your first born male child to own.

Gotoh is generally always reliable. Their Wilkinson line tends to be a bit more hit or miss, but it is their budget\OEM line.

HTC1

[lpf3]

Ya know, at first glance that Gotoh T-O-M almost looks like it could be used on a flat top guitar without recessing it or changing the neck angle. At 13.2 mm to the top of the saddles, that's just over 1/2"; and there's no lip or flange on the mounting studs to add to the height.

If that could be mounted tight to the body, & it looks like it could, that might be interesting..........

I suppose any tailpiece would work?

-lpf3

[cynical1]

Notice that the saddles will need to be cut. This is where you really dial in the proper radius. A nut file works for this job, but it is murder on your nut files.

You can match the 9-1/2" radius with this, but it's gonna be some deep cuts. The default uncut radius is called out at 350mm, or just over 13-3/4". I think the intent behind this design was to address the problem Gibson caused by putting 12" radius bridges with 10" radius necks. It also allows you to find a happier medium with compound radius necks, which typically flatten out to 16", and as flat as 20", at the higher frets above the octave.

One last thing...just to put a pin in your bubble...is the string spacing. That's why I posted the drawing. A Strat is typically spaced at 55mm, this bridge is 52.5...or typical Gibson spacing. You're still 2.5mm short for a Standard Strat. Not the end of the world, granted, but it will not line up with the poles on a Standard Strat.

And yes, just about any tailpiece would work.

Now, what would be really slick is if someone would design a Tune-o-Matic with adjustable height roller saddles. Suddenly a Bigsby trem looks much more attractive...

Happy Trails

Cynical One