Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
- Thread starter 357mag
- Start date
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
It makes sense to me. I have seen many LPs with the bridge flipped to allow this, though. Even with it flipped, the 'screws directly under the strings' are sort of a PITA to get to. I am sure a better design could be thought up.
It makes sense to me. I have seen many LPs with the bridge flipped to allow this, though. Even with it flipped, the 'screws directly under the strings' are sort of a PITA to get to. I am sure a better design could be thought up.
baritone
Well-known member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
I've seen tune-o-matic-style bridges come from the store faced both ways. I always flip the screws toward the pickups, since that way is easier for me to make adjistments. Also, I never adjust a saddle without loosening the string all the way. I have also had other guitarists tell me that my bridge is on backwards.:33:
I've seen tune-o-matic-style bridges come from the store faced both ways. I always flip the screws toward the pickups, since that way is easier for me to make adjistments. Also, I never adjust a saddle without loosening the string all the way. I have also had other guitarists tell me that my bridge is on backwards.:33:
Lewguitar
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
Maybe so the strings don't hit the screws if you have the stop tailpiece cranked down close to the body?
If you crank the stop tailpiece down to far, the strings will hit the back side of the bridge anyway...but at least you can get it down a little further if the screws are facing the pickups.
BTW, most people agree that the strings shouldn't rub against the bridge...or the screws.
Maybe so the strings don't hit the screws if you have the stop tailpiece cranked down close to the body?
If you crank the stop tailpiece down to far, the strings will hit the back side of the bridge anyway...but at least you can get it down a little further if the screws are facing the pickups.
BTW, most people agree that the strings shouldn't rub against the bridge...or the screws.
Chris Pile
Well-known member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
A lot of stuff like this has to do with tradition.... "it's always been this way"....
A lot of stuff like this has to do with tradition.... "it's always been this way"....
RogerMexiko
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
It is a lot easier to make a minor adjustment on the fly. Good design from a guy who is a guitar legend on many aspects.
It is a lot easier to make a minor adjustment on the fly. Good design from a guy who is a guitar legend on many aspects.
Dave Locher
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
I have a Gotoh and a Schaller "Nashville" TOM. I can't remember which is which, but one of them has the adjustment screws facing the pickups and the other has them facing the tailpiece. To me it makes more sense to have them at the rear of the bridge because then the string tension from the tailpiece is pulling them down toward the body and they don't have to fight against that tension like they do when facing the other way, but in actual practice it doesn't seem to matter in the least one way or the other.
I have a Gotoh and a Schaller "Nashville" TOM. I can't remember which is which, but one of them has the adjustment screws facing the pickups and the other has them facing the tailpiece. To me it makes more sense to have them at the rear of the bridge because then the string tension from the tailpiece is pulling them down toward the body and they don't have to fight against that tension like they do when facing the other way, but in actual practice it doesn't seem to matter in the least one way or the other.
InbredJunk
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
Get a babicz and never deal with it again.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Get a babicz and never deal with it again.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Dave Locher
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
Why the heck does everyone hate so much on the Nashville bridges? I keep seeing them referred to as "abominations" and "hideous" and "sustain killers" (which is absolutely not true!). I don't get it? It's just a meatier TOM with a bit more mass and a fair amount more adjustment available. I've always thought it was dumb to have half the string saddles facing backwards on the ABM!
And to me they look small, skinny, and whimpy but I don't run around posting all the time that "ABMs are dainty little girlie bridges with retainers like my 11-year old daughter."
Why the heck does everyone hate so much on the Nashville bridges? I keep seeing them referred to as "abominations" and "hideous" and "sustain killers" (which is absolutely not true!). I don't get it? It's just a meatier TOM with a bit more mass and a fair amount more adjustment available. I've always thought it was dumb to have half the string saddles facing backwards on the ABM!
And to me they look small, skinny, and whimpy but I don't run around posting all the time that "ABMs are dainty little girlie bridges with retainers like my 11-year old daughter."
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
Well, I actually have had a big sustain increase with a Faber ABR conversion - the one where a threaded bushing is screwed into the nashville drilling. And others have reported similar findings. So its not 'absolutely not true'.....it just might not be cut and dried as to whether the change is universal.
The ABR setup has a vastly superior body contact. I'm not sure if you've ever wiggled the nashville studs in the bushing, but slop doesn't even begin to describe it. Plus the bushing is only 1/3 the depth of the ABR in the wood. And the top flange is likely to have only partial top contact with a carved top.
On the upside, it has greater travel for intonating different tunings/string gauges, and the saddles/screws are captive.
Of course the purists don't like it as it doesn't look right, but other than them there is no clear winner between the two styles.
Well, I actually have had a big sustain increase with a Faber ABR conversion - the one where a threaded bushing is screwed into the nashville drilling. And others have reported similar findings. So its not 'absolutely not true'.....it just might not be cut and dried as to whether the change is universal.
The ABR setup has a vastly superior body contact. I'm not sure if you've ever wiggled the nashville studs in the bushing, but slop doesn't even begin to describe it. Plus the bushing is only 1/3 the depth of the ABR in the wood. And the top flange is likely to have only partial top contact with a carved top.
On the upside, it has greater travel for intonating different tunings/string gauges, and the saddles/screws are captive.
Of course the purists don't like it as it doesn't look right, but other than them there is no clear winner between the two styles.
Diego
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
It might be a budget piece, but I like the design of the Ibanez Gibraltar III trem because:
1) It's sort of a tune-o-matic with the intonation screws towards the string-thru area and not inwards.
2) The screws are offset from the string, so it's very easy to adjust.
Small details, big difference.
It might be a budget piece, but I like the design of the Ibanez Gibraltar III trem because:
1) It's sort of a tune-o-matic with the intonation screws towards the string-thru area and not inwards.
2) The screws are offset from the string, so it's very easy to adjust.
Small details, big difference.
HotHead
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
I always found TOMs odd. I find the orientation of the staggered saddles weird: sometimes you see the light strings have the sharp edge and the heavy strings have the angle, which I think is the wrong way around. Also, are there any that use hex keys instead of regular screws?! That would make it so much easier instead of contorting your hand to fit the screwdriver in there, and potentially stripping the screws. Is there anything worse than those flathead screws? The screwdriver just keeps slipping out of them.
I always found TOMs odd. I find the orientation of the staggered saddles weird: sometimes you see the light strings have the sharp edge and the heavy strings have the angle, which I think is the wrong way around. Also, are there any that use hex keys instead of regular screws?! That would make it so much easier instead of contorting your hand to fit the screwdriver in there, and potentially stripping the screws. Is there anything worse than those flathead screws? The screwdriver just keeps slipping out of them.
thebingopete
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
The ABR has inherent microphonic issues because of the retainer wire. You can set up the tune-o-matic either direction. Also the Nashville fits on ABR posts. Gotoh has a model that has no retainer wire and ABR posts resulting in fewer microphonics and better contact to the wood. The stop bar is adjustable for a reason. To maintain the break angle. The strings should not touch anything between the saddle and tailpiece and still be at a proper break angle. The screws shouldn't interfere. The strings will touch the backside of the bridge before the screws and at that point the break angle is too steep. Also, if your strings are touching the bridge, you've negated the purpose of getting rid of the retainer wire. Microphonics return. Like so much it's about the setup.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
The ABR has inherent microphonic issues because of the retainer wire. You can set up the tune-o-matic either direction. Also the Nashville fits on ABR posts. Gotoh has a model that has no retainer wire and ABR posts resulting in fewer microphonics and better contact to the wood. The stop bar is adjustable for a reason. To maintain the break angle. The strings should not touch anything between the saddle and tailpiece and still be at a proper break angle. The screws shouldn't interfere. The strings will touch the backside of the bridge before the screws and at that point the break angle is too steep. Also, if your strings are touching the bridge, you've negated the purpose of getting rid of the retainer wire. Microphonics return. Like so much it's about the setup.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
dystrust
Well-known member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
For me it depends on the guitar; the two bridge designs absolutely sound different. I converted my LP Standard to an ABR bridge because it provided a more 'airy' sound whereas the Nashville bridge had too much lower midrange. I've had similar experiences on 335s and much prefer an ABR on semi-hollows. OTOH I have a Nashville bridge on my Explorer because it sounds like thin, nasal crap with an ABR. The one oddball is my SG which sounds good with both. I have a Nashville on there now because I was wanting a little more low/mid thickness which helps a lot with the single coil sounds of the P-Rails I have in there.
For me it depends on the guitar; the two bridge designs absolutely sound different. I converted my LP Standard to an ABR bridge because it provided a more 'airy' sound whereas the Nashville bridge had too much lower midrange. I've had similar experiences on 335s and much prefer an ABR on semi-hollows. OTOH I have a Nashville bridge on my Explorer because it sounds like thin, nasal crap with an ABR. The one oddball is my SG which sounds good with both. I have a Nashville on there now because I was wanting a little more low/mid thickness which helps a lot with the single coil sounds of the P-Rails I have in there.
GibSG
New member
Re: Why is the bridge on the Les Paul backwards?
Studs are directly fixed into the body with Gibson ABR , the Nashville use inserts.
Studs are directly fixed into the body with Gibson ABR , the Nashville use inserts.
Similar threads
