Tremelo Question?

[greekdude]

Re: Tremelo Question?

\There are very sound technical reasons why a brass or steel block is going to perform better than a light alloy one. Sympathetic resonance damping is one, energy restitution is another

Mass and weight are not necessarily bound with better tone. There are lots of ash fenders and basswood ibanez's much lighter than your 80s asian plywood import, which are supposed to sound better than the imports right? I dont follow this logic myself, but the argument is there. Also lots of people like the sound (if indeed there is a difference) of modern alloy trem blocks vs brass or steel. Personally, i thought my partscaster sounded better with the stock asian cheap tiny block than the GFS brass one.

I think is a matter of robustness and stiffness more than anything have to do with weight or materials. Steinberger guitars had long sustain, but ppl complaint about not sounding vintage. Maybe our ears were trained at an early age to like fender and gibson sounds and designs (and their derivatives) , so we are judging things according to those standards.

 

[DreX]

Re: Tremelo Question?

lots of people like the sound (if indeed there is a difference) of modern alloy trem blocks vs brass or steel.

It's kind of obvious thinking back on it now, but what I discovered through my own and other people's experimentation is that the trem block makes a much bigger difference if you allow a bridge to float, or even if you keep the springs and claw a bit loose, so that the bridge to body contact is not firm. If you deck the bridge plate hard, the guitar body will have a much more prominent effect on the tone, and the block matters a lot less.

If the bridge is floating, the block will make a night and day difference. A steel block, especially a dense Callaham block, will sustain long, but also have a metallic high end that calls upon 250k pots to tame. As for zinc or alloy blocks, there are two varieties; full to near-full sized ones, and tiny ones that only serve to retain the string ends. The tiny ones are terrible for floating, they don't sustain for anything, but the full sized zinc/alloy blocks will sustain, maybe not as much as steel, but then again they don't sound quite as metallic as the heavy steel blocks. I think the larger zinc blocks sound to most natural, which is to say, most like a hard tail guitar.

The right block to pick depends on the guitar's initial disposition. If the neck and body are bright by themselves, a zinc block warm it up a little, and vice versa. For a while I was in a phase of trying to put steel blocks in all my Strats, but I discovered that they did no favors for the brighter guitars.

If someone has an import with 250k pots and a larger zinc block, the natural inclination is to replace the zinc with steel to get closer to vintage spec, but I'd suggest moving up to 500k pots if it's clarity and tonal richness they're after, but if the guitar came equipped with very tiny, string-retainer zink block, they should probably replace that with something fuller in size, unless they plan to deck their trem.

 

[greekdude]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Thanx for sharing your experience Drex. I just think that if a guitar sucks by birth no individual upgrade will bring it to life. I mean, if you replace the block, there are many other factors that can kill the sound. Saddles, nut, machine heads, neck, truss rod, fretwork, etc all of them can kill te tone. Personally i would hesitate starting massive upgrades if the instrument does not sing from the very start.
My 1st experience was fitting various blocks + famous supervee bladerunner to a partscaster i was building some 3 years ago. It would not sing no matter what. The bladerunner sounded slightly better, and clearer, but nothing near the endless sustain as advertised especially for their "sustainiac" block.
My 2nd experience was from my old Aria strat, which sings no matter the bridge, block, floating or not. I have tried the stock bridge, one old asian made vintage aftermarket trem and the supervee bladerunner mentioned above. I expected bladerunner to sound better. Not really. + i broke its arm!! so much for paying 200 euros for the mojo right? Anyway, the guys were polite enough to refactor it and i ended up refitting to the Aria Strat. I could not sell it, so i tried to convince myself that i "upgraded" my guitar.
Anyways, sustain-wise, IMHO most sound/tone/energy is lost somewhere in the neck.

 

[DreX]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Anyways, sustain-wise, IMHO most sound/tone/energy is lost somewhere in the neck.

Speaking of, Scott Grove is of the opinion that a bolt on neck sustains better than set or through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58GsaJ1nt6A .

Nearly all guitars sustain enough for me, or at least I attribute sustain issues to low output / low compression pickups more than I do to the guitar itself. The only guitars that fall short on sustain are the rare ones with tiny bodies or short scale lengths, but a typical Strat or Les Paul shape and size is fine, no matter the neck type.

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Mass and weight are not necessarily bound with better tone.

True. The equation is more complicated than that. Mass and density are just two physical properties. All materials have a range of different physical characteristics. Rigidity, ductility and elasticity all play a part as well. A trem block made of lead would be much heavier than one of bronze or steel but it's softness gives it poor energy restitution performance. It's weight would guarantee reduced transmission of sympathetic vibration. A material like duralumin on the other hand might have a the opposite effect. It's hardness and crystalline structure would possibly give it a unique resonance characteristic but its lack of mass would reduce the inertia the damps sympathetic resonance. You have to look at a wide range of characteristics before pronouncing judgement on any material.

Wood is an even more complicated equation. You have to take into consideration not only mass and density, but its subcellular structure, resin content and a host of other characteristics which defy analysis.

 

[greekdude]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Speaking of, Scott Grove is of the opinion that a bolt on neck sustains better than set or through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58GsaJ1nt6A .

Nearly all guitars sustain enough for me, or at least I attribute sustain issues to low output / low compression pickups more than I do to the guitar itself. The only guitars that fall short on sustain are the rare ones with tiny bodies or short scale lengths, but a typical Strat or Les Paul shape and size is fine, no matter the neck type.

its just such a huge combination of factors, that i guess it makes no sense to actually study this. I know several attempts for a scientific physics approach to guitars, but it seems that public's traditional preferences for "vintage" looks and tones dominate anything in the market, hence people are left studying a completely unstable (woods, types, densities, etc as octavedoctor explains) and badly defined problem (attack vs sustain vs crisp sound vs dark sound). It is very hard to put all together, data, given restrictions and constraints, the function to maximize (e.g. player's satisfaction) and finally develop a solution.

About pickups, when i had fitted a DMZ superD to the failing partscaster, it sounded *bad*. When i fitted to the Carvin DC135, i heard the most killer natural harmonics (pantera style) of my life! + they had a big difference in sustain. A lower output pickup can kill the sustain no doubt. On the other hand, a high output pickup cannot do a thing to sustain if the string stops to vibrate after 3-4 secs. I've had it both ways.

 

[SJ318]

Re: Tremelo Question?

octavedoctor, I stand corrected about what you meant by gimmicks.
Funny you should mention, I was just about to pull the trigger on a planetwaves ns micro tuner, along with some Gotoh steel saddles, do you consider those tuners "digital" tuners I should not get you started on? Or did you mean something else?
SJ

 

[DMR]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Speaking of, Scott Grove is of the opinion that a bolt on neck sustains better than set or through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58GsaJ1nt6A .

It's interesting that Scott contends that woods have no effect on tone, but that the manner in which woods are coupled would affect sustain. I find that to be contradictory. I believe Ed Roman had the same take with regard to bolt-on vs glued in necks. It makes sense to me that a well coupled bolt-on would have better sustain than a guitar with glue between the neck and the body.

 

[DreX]

Re: Tremelo Question?

It's interesting that Scott contends that woods have no effect on tone, but that the manner in which woods are coupled would affect sustain. I find that to be contradictory.

I can see someone acknowledging one but not the other. Scott Grove is entertaining though, even more so when he's wrong.

I believe Ed Roman had the same take with regard to bolt-on vs glued in necks. It makes sense to me that a well coupled bolt-on would have better sustain than a guitar with glue between the neck and the body.

I get the feeling the deciding factor is tradition, or perceived ideas of quality, at this point. Nobody really cares about the sustain factor. It could be scientifically demonstrated that bolt on necks sustain better, regardless, Les Pauls will still be set neck until the end of time.

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Tremelo Question?

octavedoctor, I stand corrected about what you meant by gimmicks.
Funny you should mention, I was just about to pull the trigger on a planetwaves ns micro tuner, along with some Gotoh steel saddles, do you consider those tuners "digital" tuners I should not get you started on? Or did you mean something else?
SJ

Don't let me put you off!

Digital tuners are OK as a useful aid, it's just that I am seeing whole generations of guitarists who can't tune their guitars without an electronic gadget. All I've ever used is a tuning fork. Clients come into my workshop and watch in amazement as I tune guitars by ear like it was some magic trick. It's not, it's just practice. My apprentice Chris, when he chose to turn up, used to moan bitterly that I wouldn't allow the use of DTs in my workshop.

The thing is, when I started learning guitar it was about 1972. Digital tuners didn't exist. Such that did, cost several months earnings. Now you can get them for a couple of bucks.

The effect of this dramatic cost reduction is that when a new guitarist goes into a shop to buy a guitar, they are nearly always sold a digital tuner, rather than a tuning fork, so beginner guitarists rarely learn to use their ears any longer.

I had a Takamine in for repair last week. The preamp wasn't working and it was the CTB-4 or something with a built in tuner. I told the guy that I'd have a poke around while I was setting it up and I managed to get the audio side of the preamp working, but not the tuner. I figured he'd be delighted to have it working because he was facing the prospect of buying a new preamp but when I told him all he did was moan that the tuner wasn't working and how was he going to tune his guitar? My suggestion that he buy a tuning fork and that this was a lot cheaper than a new preamp was not appreciated at all.

This is what frustrates me and why I go off on a tirade against gimmickry. It's not that I'm a technophobe or a Luddite - I have five Macs, two iPhones, a PS3 and a couple of Linux boxes - but lot of guitarists seem to think that buying into expensive gimmicks will make them a better guitarist, but it doesn't. Taking short cuts and doing things the easy way never made anyone better at anything, it's doing things the hard way that makes you good.

I was watching George Harrison and Paul Simon playing "Here comes the sun" on YouTube a few weeks ago and it's useful to reflect that music like this was made without the aid of digital tuners, locking machine heads, earvana nuts, fat fingers, big bends nut sauce, Fishman Aura Imaging...

So here's a suggestion. Get that tuner, but add an A440 tuning fork to the order as well.

 

[SJ318]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Octavedoctor,
I started in around the Yardbirds, so I guess 67? But I also started out with ONLY a tuning fork. A440. I have a great ear. Then came the now almost forgotten Peterson Strobe tuner. EVERYONE went batsh*t over that one. It was good, but in a quick situation, the bass player, whose bass I used to tuned by using a Tuning fork to tune his A string and tune the rest to that. For me, on stage, when I was playing 5-6 sets a night for 5-6 nights a week when club crowds use to pay to see local bands and it was crowded and very noisy. If the bass player went out of tune on stage, I, by default, would have the keyboard player hit A and D at the same time and look at the bass player and hold my thumb up if his A was flat and Down if it was sharp. He finally figured out the Peterson, but until then, it was me and a tuning fork on breaks, or the keyboard player playing A and D when we were between songs. The reason for A+D on the keyboard was he had a huge Hammond and there was some warble from his leslie, so the A and D together gave me a little more solidarity on the A as a part of the whole. Actually, now that I think of it, it was A, D, A, yeah, that 's right. You'd be surprised how many professional players I have known that could not tune their guitars with out a Boss pedal or a digital readout. When I took up Sitar, it was tuned to C#, or D flat, depending on what instrument you play, I've been told. I don't don't know why one musician, say a keyboardist, would say D flat, and a Guitarist would say C#. Anyway, I have a Tamboura cd I detune from D to C# w/a Tascam Guitar Trainer and just let it run, as a C# tuning fork that I have, is just too time consuming and as you go - the sitar is a little like a floating trem - four strings tuned up change the other 9 strings as the neck is huge and hollow and bends easily, especially AFTER it is tuned and the lifted to playing position. Oy Vay! As far as dense, mass and sustain, the sitar has a little bridge under the main 7 strings that vibrate from sitar (Tun) wood to the little synpathetic bridge to make them ring out by vibrating and matching the the main .012 playing string.
I tried making the sympathetic bridge out of metal, dense ebony, and even plastic acetal, my thinking being that the thicker and denser piece would equal more vibration. I was totally wrong. This PARTICULAR type of wood, the mass and denseness of a particular type of Deer horn from India vibrated the best. It is now illegal. So I used bone nuts uncut titebonded together and hand sanded works best for me. In the industry, Some sitar players are now using a mix of light ebony with thicker chunks of acetal for the main bridge and the same thing only smaller for the little sympathetic bridge.
You gotta hear this. I still have, since I started sitar way back in the 80's, 2, that's 2!! huge main playing bridges made from that illegal horn. In India, that is the equivalent of 2 PAF Humbuckers, I kid you not. I have been offered hundreds of dollars from the few sitar players I know in the states that meet in Seattle and San Rafael, Ca. As they used to say "What a Trip". Mass, denseness, and even porousness counts on a Sitar.
SJB

 

[LazyLightning]

Re: Tremelo Question?

Well,
I don't even have the trem bar in atm anyhow. I am leaning towards making it permanently immobile if and when I do anything, but that kinda defeats the purpose of having it. Still conflicted on which way to go, so just leaving it for now. Thanks again for all the great advice and options everyone!