Recessing a vintage 6-hole: Possible?

[B3Guy]

Well, I mostly asked in the first place, because I'm a tinkerer and like to ponder these things. I'm not really one to think about actually executing anything like recessing a 6-hole.  :icon_jokercolor:

I'm actually quite taken with their larger trem, the Super-Vee. Only problem is it is meant to be double-locking (lock at the nut as well), and I'm not a big fan of exess crap at the nut. would it work fine with an LSR roller nut and locking tuners?

You could do that, but if you're not locking down at the nut, why not just go with the BladeRunner? They both use the same tech.

true, true . . . .

 

[Damon]

Only problem is it is meant to be double-locking (lock at the nut as well), and I'm not a big fan of exess crap at the nut. would it work fine with an LSR roller nut and locking tuners?

I had a Carvin a decade or so ago with a Floyd, locking tuners and a Graphtech nut (before they had the TUSQ XL nuts, which are supposed to be even better). Worked like a champ without the locking nut BS. I could pull up unil the high e was ready to snap or dive bomb until the strings fell off the nut and - provided the strings didn't REALLY fall off the nut - it always came back in tune.

 

[B3Guy]

are there many other options for locking nuts besides the Floyd type setup? I haven't been able to find anything.

 

[Cagey]

are there many other options for locking nuts besides the Floyd type setup? I haven't been able to find anything.

Why do you even want a locking nut? They're a pain in the ass, and they're not necessary unless you have crummy tuners, a bad nut, and/or a poorly designed bridge.

Put some good locking tuners on the thing, an LSR nut, and a decent 2 point fulcrum bridge from Gotoh, Wilkinson, Badass, or Hipshot. You'll be able to wank the strings until they break if you want to, and the thing will stay in tune. If you can't use an LSR nut because of dimensional issues, the TUSQ nuts are slippery enough to work well as long as they're properly cut.

 

[B3Guy]

what is the LSR? 1 11/16?

 

[B3Guy]

oh no. I remember what it is . . . .

satin finish  :sad1:

 

[Cagey]

Yes, it's 1 11/16" wide, and it's a satin finish. It's also stainless, so you can't have it anodized or plated. I know; I went down that road when I built my tiger Strat and wanted the nut to match the other gold hardware. Ended up with a black TUSQ Earvana on it instead, which matched the ebony, and it's fine. No hang-ups, so no tuning or return-to-neutral issues.

 

[B3Guy]

I'll likely go with Graphtech Tusq and some locking tuners. I haven't decided on a bridge yet, however. I was contemplating the Wilky VS100, but the satin is an utter turn off for me. I may go with the VSVG, but I don't know. I haven't seen if that uses a blade design or not (it is advertised as a 6-hole which makes me nervous it is not).

This Blade Runner is very logical in theory, but I have not been able to find any true reviews on it (everyone just copies basically what is on the Super-V site), so I am not sure if I will risk it on this one. If I did, I'd put some Callaham saddles on it for looks.

 

[Disco Scottie]

I'm seriously considering the BladeRunner for one of my projects. I might go ahead and put one on my Highway One Strat to see how it is.

 

[stubhead]

Somewhere, oh somewhere online, there are great pictures of Jeff Beck's whammy setup. He can raise the G string two whole steps (up to B). The plate is angled WAY up in back, probably 1/4" or so off the face of the guitar. He bends the arm up, and also shortens it and puts a sideways crook in it so he can do his genius stuff that we mortals don't have to worry about. He uses a "standard" Fender two-point whammy, the " " part is because he was actually consulted on the design of the thing. If I ever wanted to try to learn to play the bar like that, I would buy a Fender two-point setup. I'll keep looking for those pix.

look real close between 1:28 and 2:20 and you can see how high it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yGB6d_3n58&feature=player_embedded

And here is why we'll never, ever, ever be Jeff Beck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x_IVpr1oso

 

[stubhead]

PLUS:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO7A1EF9VJ4

 

[Cagey]

I'll likely go with Graphtech Tusq and some locking tuners. I haven't decided on a bridge yet, however. I was contemplating the Wilky VS100, but the satin is an utter turn off for me. I may go with the VSVG, but I don't know. I haven't seen if that uses a blade design or not (it is advertised as a 6-hole which makes me nervous it is not).

This Blade Runner is very logical in theory, but I have not been able to find any true reviews on it (everyone just copies basically what is on the Super-V site), so I am not sure if I will risk it on this one. If I did, I'd put some Callaham saddles on it for looks.

Unless you already have a body routed/drilled for the 6 hole bridge, you really don't want to use one. The two-point fulcrum is far superior. Even the Floyd Rose uses that design, and even Fender got away from the 6 point parts except on their foolish models. Almost all the horror stories you've ever heard about vibrato bridges not tuning, losing tune, eating tone, breaking strings, making noise, etc. involve vintage 6 point parts, except for the pitiful things Gibson used to use and the miserable Jaguar/Jazzmaster design. Oh, and those laughable Bigsby things. That's why the design has been mostly dropped, except to satisfy the masochistic tendencies of the emotionally bent who don't know any better and are willing to pay to suffer.

 

[B3Guy]

the VSVG mentions a blade design in some literature I think, and I've seen many folks put it on with only the 2 outer screws, but I suspect that's still not the same as a 2 point. (2 point posts are "notched" for the blade, correct?)

This Blade Runner theoretically takes a step further from the blade design. I may try it out. (hey, it's reversible. why not.) to get some space for "pull up", I should be able to shim a little bit under where the bridge secures to the body, correct? Or would the block just hit stuff on the inside of the guitar anyway?

 

[Cagey]

Sustain block is going to hit. But, you can always rout that out if you really want/need to. Done properly, it's not readily visible from the exterior of the guitar. I did it to a GFS body a year or so ago. Wasn't happy after all for other reasons, but it proved it was doable.

 

[B3Guy]

are they really designed to sit right there touching?

 

[Cagey]

Properly installed, the block won't touch anything. But, there's only just so much room to move.

 

[Firebird211]

I'll likely go with Graphtech Tusq and some locking tuners. I haven't decided on a bridge yet, however. I was contemplating the Wilky VS100, but the satin is an utter turn off for me. I may go with the VSVG, but I don't know. I haven't seen if that uses a blade design or not (it is advertised as a 6-hole which makes me nervous it is not).

This Blade Runner is very logical in theory, but I have not been able to find any true reviews on it (everyone just copies basically what is on the Super-V site), so I am not sure if I will risk it on this one. If I did, I'd put some Callaham saddles on it for looks.

Unless you already have a body routed/drilled for the 6 hole bridge, you really don't want to use one. The two-point fulcrum is far superior. Even the Floyd Rose uses that design, and even Fender got away from the 6 point parts except on their foolish models. Almost all the horror stories you've ever heard about vibrato bridges not tuning, losing tune, eating tone, breaking strings, making noise, etc. involve vintage 6 point parts, except for the pitiful things Gibson used to use and the miserable Jaguar/Jazzmaster design. Oh, and those laughable Bigsby things. That's why the design has been mostly dropped, except to satisfy the masochistic tendencies of the emotionally bent who don't know any better and are willing to pay to suffer.

I always heard that the 6 hole vintage, although not being as functional trem wise, has better sustain over the two-point fulcrum.  I may have heard wrong, but it made sense to me because the vintage has more points of contact to the wood than the two-point fulcrum.  I even read or heard somewhere that the vintage had less chance of warble than the two-point.  By all means, anyone that likes using the trem alot shouldn't have a vintage in the first place.  I agree with that.  I also just remembered with the particular vintage LR Baggs bridge that I have, the reviews for the modern two-point version were much lower.  I actually really like the bridge, it has very smooth saddles and when used with locking tuners and a graphtech nut, the bridge could take moderate use and always be in tune.  It was a huge improvement over the crappy stock bridge.  Once again, this is coming from someone who is happy with a fixed bridge most of the time. :laughing7:

 

[Cagey]

I always heard that the 6 hole vintage, although not being as functional trem wise, has better sustain over the two-point fulcrum.  I may have heard wrong, but it made sense to me because the vintage has more points of contact to the wood than the two-point fulcrum.  I even read or heard somewhere that the vintage had less chance of warble than the two-point.  By all means, anyone that likes using the trem alot shouldn't have a vintage in the first place.  I agree with that.

You probably heard right, but it's not true.

That design appears to have more points of contact, but there's no way they all make contact. Even if the body were made of metal and machined very closely, those six points would have varying amounts of contact, or pressure. It's gonna be two unpredictable major points out of the six, and maybe some amount of touching on the others. The two major points are connected to the body through some very thin posts (the pivot screws), so the connection isn't very good.

With a wood body, the problem is exacerbated, as there's simply no way to machine wood to the exacting tolerances you can with metal, and even if you could, wood has variable density throughout the grain structure. Now you have two unpredictable main pivots which are very thin running into a relatively soft base. So, you lose sustain due to absorption, which also costs you tone to some degree, depending on how much influence you wanted the neck/body to have on the whole assembly.

Then, the main contact points aren't very fine, and you have other friction points that aren't as tight and so may develop deposits or oxides, so they tend to gall and hang up, which means the thing won't return to neutral reliably.

The end result is a problem child. When they're new, they're not good, but they're not terrible. But, things deteriorate fairly rapidly.

On the plus side, at least for the OEM, they're inexpensive to manufacture and install. That's why you still see them on MIM or MIJ guitars in the sub-$500 range. And, of course, you see them on "vintage" instruments from before they knew any better and on builds by people who insist on the crummy design for reasons only they can justify. Certainly not because they want reliabilty, repeatability, sustain and tone. Although, if asked, they might cite those reasons as their motive for using the things. But, usually it's just an emotional thing. "I wanna vintage guitar! Waaahh!" Lord only knows why. They're crap.

Modern vibrato bridges use a two point fulcrum with knife edge pivots, and they're usually made of hardened or stainless steel so they wear extremely well. There's almost no friction at the pivots to speak of, so the positional repeatability is high, as is the reliability of the pivots. The load is balanced across two points only, and the points never move due to wear or substrate compression or movement. The posts are heavy and large, so the connection to the body is very solid, regardless of the wood species involved, so sustain and tone are as good as it gets without going to a hard-mounted bridge.

 

[Firebird211]

I always heard that the 6 hole vintage, although not being as functional trem wise, has better sustain over the two-point fulcrum.  I may have heard wrong, but it made sense to me because the vintage has more points of contact to the wood than the two-point fulcrum.  I even read or heard somewhere that the vintage had less chance of warble than the two-point.  By all means, anyone that likes using the trem alot shouldn't have a vintage in the first place.  I agree with that.

Although, if asked, they might cite those reasons as their motive for using the things. But, usually it's just an emotional thing. "I wanna vintage guitar! Waaahh!" Lord only knows why. They're crap.

LMAO, you are right there.  I never had problems, although my trem was tightly flush and hardly used, but you may have inspired me to block my vintage trem. :laughing7: