New Fender Bridge Whammy bar Schecter Tuners

[franklantern]

HI all,

Finished my first build awhile back. Guitar plays great. The goal was to have a similair tone to my "91 American Standard strat but have better playability. Obviously with the warmoth neck the new guitar plays much better but the tone on the new guitar is not quite.as full, espcially on the lower strings. The tone on the lower strings isnt as defined.

Now I am looking at changing a few things, most notably the pickups and bridge hardware. I am using the guitar for a fairly clean jazz tone. I originally tried Area 59 and Area 61 pup's. Great sound for blues and rock but they werent balanced enough tonally for me. Found some Lace sensors which is what are on the american standard and they balanced things out but not sure they are as good as the older ones so I have ordered some Lollar S specials.

My question is do the new Amercian Standard Fender Tremelo (vibrator) bridges use the same materials as the older bridges such as the bridge on my '91. The reason I think they are different is because the ball ends on the strings get stuck in the trem block when I go to change strings and wont come out unless I poke at them with a screwdriver. Its as if they are sinking into the trem block. Never had this issue with the older trem block. Second if i tap the saddle posts on the older bridge it is a sharp high pitched ping. On the new saddles the pitch is lower and not as sharp. Of course neither of these demonstrates that the metal is inferior on the newer Fender products. I am curious to others experience with newer Fender bridges. I find it hard to believe Fender would have used this bridge hardware on a custom shop guitar. Is it possible they have different hardware for their custom shop?

I am ordering the callahan bridge and trm block to see if that helps things.
This plus the lollar pup's shhould be an improvement.


In addition the new Schecter tuners dont appear to be made as well as the older ones. They work fine but the machining/metal quality doesnt appear as good.

Yes, I realize Wilkinsons are good hardware. Only interested in peoples thought on the newer Fender trem hardware.

Thank you...

 

[Cagey]

OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) will sell their mothers to save $.05 cents in production costs, simply because a million of anything is a lot. Fender doesn't make a million guitars a year, but I'm quite confident they make hundreds of thousands, and cheaping out on tuners, bridges, pickups, etc. saves them substantially more than $.05 cents per unit.

Fender is notorious for changing specs in mid-stream. It's prevalent enough throughout history that counterfeiting an old one is a walk in the park. You can't prove jack by looking at how the thing was built or what was used, and identifying marks are inconsistent. Plus, they always have about 38 versions of the same thing, with about 49 things available. So, who can say what's what? A Strat is not a Strat, when you're talking about a Fender Strat. It's just something Fender sells that's based on the Strat design.

As a result, there's really no way to tell what your saddles are, where they came from or what they're made out of. You basically have to decide for yourself whether or not you like them by swapping them around with other parts that nominally fit, and govern yourself accordingly.

 

[franklantern]

One thing I found odd is that this new Fender bridge has the offset saddle screw which according to Callaham's site is an older style. My '91 has this style. The newer ones have a center saddle screw. The brand new one I bought from warmoth had an offcenter saddle screw. It would seem they are either selling really old parts, calaham is mistaken, that is not an actual fender trem/bridge that was sold to me or Fender sells different hardware to distrubutors than what they use on the guitars they sell.


Regardless... its not a very good bridge.

 

[Mor Paul]

OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) will sell their mothers to save $.05 cents in production costs, simply because a million of anything is a lot. Fender doesn't make a million guitars a year, but I'm quite confident they make hundreds of thousands, and cheaping out on tuners, bridges, pickups, etc. saves them substantially more than $.05 cents per unit.

Haven't you used that one before?

 

[Cagey]

One thing I found odd is that this new Fender bridge has the offset saddle screw which according to Callaham's site is an older style. My '91 has this style. The newer ones have a center saddle screw. The brand new one I bought from warmoth had an offcenter saddle screw. It would seem they are either selling really old parts, calaham is mistaken, that is not an actual fender trem/bridge that was sold to me or Fender sells different hardware to distrubutors than what they use on the guitars they sell.


Regardless... its not a very good bridge.

Or,

E: all of the above, among other scenarios.

 

[Cagey]

OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) will sell their mothers to save $.05 cents in production costs, simply because a million of anything is a lot. Fender doesn't make a million guitars a year, but I'm quite confident they make hundreds of thousands, and cheaping out on tuners, bridges, pickups, etc. saves them substantially more than $.05 cents per unit.

Haven't you used that one before?

Which one?

 

[Mor Paul]

Basically that whole quote

 

[Cagey]

I'm still not clear on what you're asking me. I have owned Fender guitars in the past, if that's what you mean.

 

[Shadow]

I'm still not clear on what you're asking me. I have owned Fender guitars in the past, if that's what you mean.

I think he is asking "haven't you used that quote before?"

 

[Cagey]

It's not intended to be a quote, but if it is, I might be quoting myself. I've been saying similar things for years related to a number of subjects. English is my native language, so the possibility always exists that I might use words or phrases other have used in English-speaking countries. If you break it down far enough, even this post is a series of quotes. Every word I've used here has been used before. Keep in mind, though, that since this post is now recorded then according to our goofy copyright laws it's now copyrighted, and if anybody uses what I've said here I can sue them into insolvency <grin>

 

[Mor Paul]

[quote author=Cagey]
OEMs are funny. They'd sell their own mothers for 10 cent production cost reduction, and if their marketing weenies force them to add something, it goes on at roughly cost x 100. So, instead of a $.40 cent neck plate adding 40 cents to the retail price of a fiddle, it becomes a $40 adder.[/quote]
[quote author=Cagey]
OEMs will sell their mothers for a nickel in production cost savings, since a bajillion of anything is a lot. So, you get multiples of a Microsoft or some patent troll nailing them for anywhere between 25 cents and 25 dollars to use what they feel they deserve is their due, and those prices get marked up several times to the end user until you end up with widgets that are grossly overpriced purely because of government-sanctioned and enforced monopolies on ideas.[/quote]
[quote author=Cagey]
OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) will sell their mothers to save $.05 cents in production costs, simply because a million of anything is a lot. Fender doesn't make a million guitars a year, but I'm quite confident they make hundreds of thousands, and cheaping out on tuners, bridges, pickups, etc. saves them substantially more than $.05 cents per unit.[/quote]

Haha, just something I noticed.

 

[Cagey]

What can I say? It bears repeating. People are often confused about the motivations of major OEMs, when it's quite simple: it's all about money and perception. It has nothing to do with producing a quality product or or professional integrity or concern for their customer's happiness. If they can make something look like it's good or desirable, then that's all that matters. They'll pull cost out of it until it's junk.

Of course, that's a generality, not an absolute. Taylor and Martin, for instance, are major guitar OEMs and they don't try to screw people. But, they also charge a great deal of money for their products to cover being good and still make a reasonable profit.

 

[bagman67]

[quote author=Cagey]
OEMs are funny. They'd sell their own mothers for 10 cent production cost reduction, and if their marketing weenies force them to add something, it goes on at roughly cost x 100. So, instead of a $.40 cent neck plate adding 40 cents to the retail price of a fiddle, it becomes a $40 adder.

[quote author=Cagey]
OEMs will sell their mothers for a nickel in production cost savings, since a bajillion of anything is a lot. So, you get multiples of a Microsoft or some patent troll nailing them for anywhere between 25 cents and 25 dollars to use what they feel they deserve is their due, and those prices get marked up several times to the end user until you end up with widgets that are grossly overpriced purely because of government-sanctioned and enforced monopolies on ideas.[/quote]
[quote author=Cagey]
OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) will sell their mothers to save $.05 cents in production costs, simply because a million of anything is a lot. Fender doesn't make a million guitars a year, but I'm quite confident they make hundreds of thousands, and cheaping out on tuners, bridges, pickups, etc. saves them substantially more than $.05 cents per unit.[/quote]

Haha, just something I noticed.
[/quote]

Universal truths:
The speed of light in a vacuum
E=mc^2
Cagey's hardnosed attitude toward manufacturers and marketers of guitars (and just about anything else)

It's nice to know some things can be relied on, is all I'm saying.  :icon_biggrin:

 

[Cagey]

That's right. I am a rock <grin>

 

[stubhead]

Leo Fender (I've used this before)* had three main priorities for manufacture:
1) The guitars could be made out of cheap and plentiful materials, including commercial-grade wood;
2) They could be made on existing machinery, with no ridiculous tooling needed;
3) They could be made by unskilled and semi-skilled low-wage employees, no hoity-toity "luthiers" need apply.

So all the famous music through generations made on Fenders depended on the lowest-bid materials. James Burton/Jimi Hendrix/1958 Strat/1953 Tele, you name it. The point is, once you get past the unplayable beater stage there is very little-to-NO correlation between the price of an instrument and the quality of music that is played on it. "Sultans of Swing" was recorded on a $100 no-name Strat copy, the first two Santana albums (did his tone ever get better?) were recorded with a 1968 Les Paul, not a "vintage" one, the first two Boston albums, a 1976 Les Paul.... you can buy all the DeTemple titanium/Callaham/Duncan "Silver" pickups & parts you want - but did you write a great song today?

*( :toothy12

 

[Kaoskadosk]

Leo Fender (I've used this before)* had three main priorities for manufacture:
1) The guitars could be made out of cheap and plentiful materials, including commercial-grade wood;
2) They could be made on existing machinery, with no ridiculous tooling needed;
3) They could be made by unskilled and semi-skilled low-wage employees, no hoity-toity "luthiers" need apply.

So all the famous music through generations made on Fenders depended on the lowest-bid materials. James Burton/Jimi Hendrix/1958 Strat/1953 Tele, you name it. The point is, once you get past the unplayable beater stage there is very little-to-NO correlation between the price of an instrument and the quality of music that is played on it. "Sultans of Swing" was recorded on a $100 no-name Strat copy, the first two Santana albums (did his tone ever get better?) were recorded with a 1968 Les Paul, not a "vintage" one, the first two Boston albums, a 1976 Les Paul.... you can buy all the DeTemple titanium/Callaham/Duncan "Silver" pickups & parts you want - but did you write a great song today?

*( :toothy12

Thing is, if you play a 2011 strat vs a 1980 strat you'll feel a difference. Now they go to great lengths to save in every single penny as Cagey said, which they didn't before. Yes, easy to make, fast to produce and cheap materials, but that didn't mean that they spewed out shitty instruments on purpose to raise their own bonuses so they can buy that fancy new house they always wanted.

OEMs are indeed more or less starting to become a "scam". They produce high-end custom shop guitars to their endorsed players, yet the "common market" they are supposed to represent is just spewed out barf. Before it was cheap, but it was cheap with quality control and materials that were passable as guitar material.

 

[bagman67]

I disagree somewhat with you, Kaoskadosk.  Certainly Fender and GIbson have some quality control issues and are ridiculously overpriced, but it's actually pretty hard to find a brand new complete turd of a guitar anymore - because CNC routing and other manufacturing techniques have improved the minimum level of quality it's possible to achieve.  And that includes the Chinese no-name imports as well as the biggies.  I think this forum is populated more with folks frustrated with the faults with high-end guitars than those who object to those same faults occurring with greater frequency in low-priced axes.

That said, I do agree that the Gibson and Fender management structures seem to be okay with the quality-per-dollar issues because they're making more money (as individuals with bonus incentives, and as a company with earnings-per-share motives) doing it the way they are than they could if they had to pay to improve those issues.  Yay for the MBA approach!

 

[stubhead]

I saw a lot of mid-range, under $800 guitars while teaching students, and Ibanez and especially Schecter make really "good-value" guitars, quite consistent above the $300 point or so. I don't think they're as quick to change factories to save a few cents, they take the idea of quality serious enough that you don't see great variations in a single model like you do with Epiphone, Squier, and Fender/Gibson. I agree with Cagey that an "American Standard" Stratocaster is NOT necessarily an "American" Standard Stratocaster, it's just a model designation. Like the red-white 'n blue flag hats and clothes and trinkets, made in Indonesia/China/Mexico/etc.

 

[franklantern]

Installed the new block and saddles. Big improvment in tone, especially low end definition. Suffice to say I wont be using any Fender hardware on future projects.

 

[NLD09]

Leo Fender (I've used this before)* had three main priorities for manufacture:
1) The guitars could be made out of cheap and plentiful materials, including commercial-grade wood;
2) They could be made on existing machinery, with no ridiculous tooling needed;
3) They could be made by unskilled and semi-skilled low-wage employees, no hoity-toity "luthiers" need apply.

So all the famous music through generations made on Fenders depended on the lowest-bid materials. James Burton/Jimi Hendrix/1958 Strat/1953 Tele, you name it. The point is, once you get past the unplayable beater stage there is very little-to-NO correlation between the price of an instrument and the quality of music that is played on it. "Sultans of Swing" was recorded on a $100 no-name Strat copy, the first two Santana albums (did his tone ever get better?) were recorded with a 1968 Les Paul, not a "vintage" one, the first two Boston albums, a 1976 Les Paul.... you can buy all the DeTemple titanium/Callaham/Duncan "Silver" pickups & parts you want - but did you write a great song today?

*( :toothy12

+1. I didn't really read much of this thread, but I read your comment and it's exactly my philosophy behind guitar builds. Throw some stuff together that gets in the general ballpark of your general sound (ie. humbuckers vs. single coils,) get it in a shape that's comfortable to you and play some music. Oh, and make it look cool enough that you'll want to pick it up and play it every day.  :headbang1: