Tremolo bar. Decisions, decisions...

[nexrex]

Range of motion has more to do with the body routing the bridge sits in than anything else. You have to have room underneath for the "sustain" block to go back and forth, and room on top for the saddle plate to go up and down. Within limits, you can get a Wilkinson or Fender bridge to swing farther than a Floyd if you route the body right, and vice-versa. So, that's not really an issue. That's why I say you're better off with a simpler unit. If there's nothing hanging the strings up at the nut or the trees or the tuners, then the headstock isn't an issue and you don't need all the complicated mechanics down at the bridge to tune the little bugger.

If you terrorize the strings a lot, they're eventually going to go out of tune no matter what system you use. That's why even Floyds have tuners on them. So they're locked at the nut. So what? Now you have to tune them at the bridge. May as well only have one set of tuners, that way you're not doing all sorts of resetting when you change strings or replace a broken one. Plus, without a locking nut changing a string isn't something you have to go looking for a tool to do.

All I know is the Floyds I've had have caused me to do more work than I need to, cost more money than I needed to spend, got in my way while trying to play, and added maintenance difficulty. I can set up a guitar with a Wilkinson that stays in tune almost no matter how hard I beat on it, and is dead simple to deal with. Not that the Floyds won't do the job. They do. I just think they're just unnecessarily complicated, time-consuming and expensive. They do look cool, though <grin>

Thanks Cagey, I don't think I could have answered this any better myself.  :icon_thumright:

 

[Musicman418]

Haha, I'll have to check the Wilkinson out.  It looks nice though!  I actually don't care for the looks of the Floyd Rose, I prefer the vintage look, haha.  So, I shouldn't have any tuning problems with the Wilkinson trem though?  I'm hoping for at least an octave of downward range, and a minor 3rd at least of upward range.  (Would really like a major 3rd of range though!)

 

[OzziePete]

Hey everybody!  I'm a first time poster, looking to build my first custom guitar, and was hoping to get an opinion on some of the various tremolo bridges out there.  My first choice is a Floyd Rose Tremolo.  Not one of the licensed ones, the real deal.  I also would like to install a tremsetter system on it, and would like some recommendations.  My other choice is the Stetsbar, which is supposed to have a similar range to a standard fender tremolo, but with much better tuning stability, as well as being able to fit on any style of guitars, although that doesn't make much of a difference with it being a custom.  But would have the chunk of wood removed change the sound?  Here's the link:  http://stetsbar.com/  Thanks guys!

Hey Dangerous! Is this your long lost prodigal son returning? :laughing3: "My first choice is a Floyd Rose Tremelo." would be music to your ears, right?

( Musicman, FYI being a newbie,  DangerousR6 is quite a strong advocate for the use of Floyd Rose's. Any new project that is started up in a Thread, usually has Dangerous asking if there will be a 'Floyd' on it within the first few posts...He is quite keen to spread the FR love.  :icon_thumright

 

[DangerousR6]

Hey everybody!  I'm a first time poster, looking to build my first custom guitar, and was hoping to get an opinion on some of the various tremolo bridges out there.  My first choice is a Floyd Rose Tremolo.  Not one of the licensed ones, the real deal.  I also would like to install a tremsetter system on it, and would like some recommendations.  My other choice is the Stetsbar, which is supposed to have a similar range to a standard fender tremolo, but with much better tuning stability, as well as being able to fit on any style of guitars, although that doesn't make much of a difference with it being a custom.  But would have the chunk of wood removed change the sound?  Here's the link:  http://stetsbar.com/  Thanks guys!

Hey Dangerous! Is this your long lost prodigal son returning? :laughing3: "My first choice is a Floyd Rose Tremelo." would be music to your ears, right?

( Musicman, FYI being a newbie,  DangerousR6 is quite a strong advocate for the use of Floyd Rose's. Any new project that is started up in a Thread, usually has Dangerous asking if there will be a 'Floyd' on it within the first few posts...He is quite keen to spread the FR love.  :icon_thumright

:laughing7:

 

[B3Guy]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PMT4L-v-KU[/youtube] recessed Wilkinson vs100 demo :icon_thumright: mebe this will give you a good idea of its range.

 

[Cagey]

Haha, I'll have to check the Wilkinson out.  It looks nice though!  I actually don't care for the looks of the Floyd Rose, I prefer the vintage look, haha.  So, I shouldn't have any tuning problems with the Wilkinson trem though?  I'm hoping for at least an octave of downward range, and a minor 3rd at least of upward range.  (Would really like a major 3rd of range though!)

Unless you're using a "Vintage" bridge from [insert manufacturer here], tuning problems are almost always a headstock issue. So, locking tuners that mitigate the need for multiple wraps of string on the posts, the absence of string trees that put bends and friction on the strings so they can't move, and a well-designed/implemented nut that doesn't get grabby with the strings or put sharp bends in them will clear all those stumbling blocks out of the way. At the other end, most modern bridges of any design (except those that copy vintage designs) don't contribute to tuning problems.

As for range, you simply need enough room to clear the hardware in either direction. Although, dropping a whole octave isn't exactly practical. The strings would be practically hanging off the neck, and it's unlikely they'd be vibrating in any meaningful way. Some of the wildest vibrato work I've heard was back when Mr. Hendrix was doing his Vietnam bombing runs and Ritchie Blackmore (Deep Purple) used to wank on that thing like it was a porn star, and they both did that with a real impossible-to-tune vintage Strat from back before they were "vintage" <grin>

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

An LSR nut would eliminate the need for all of those.  It's properly cut, because it isn't.  No string tees are necessary.  Hell, the strings are sitting on ball bearings.

 

[Cagey]

An LSR nut would eliminate the need for all of those.  It's properly cut, because it isn't.  No string tees are necessary.  Hell, the strings are sitting on ball bearings.

Right. I mentioned those several posts back. I'm a big fan of them for the very reason you point out: nothing to worry about, slot-wise. The only downside to them is the cost; Warmoth wants $40 to cut for the thing, then the nut itself is another $44 if you get it from them. Add shipping, and the nut sets you back $100 all told. But, again, never have to worry about the things. They work great, self-adjust for string gauge (to some degree), and don't wear out. One way to look at it then is if you keep a guitar for 5 years, the LSR nut only costs you ~$1.50/mo. Small price to pay for such a Good Thing. Of course, if you've got a shop and the balls, you could cut for the thing yourself and knock the price in half, but it's risky business. Screw it up, and you've damaged a neck that may have run you anywhere from $200 to $600 or more. Better to let them do it. If they screw it up, they get to build you a new neck on their dime <grin>

All that said, I've had remarkably good luck on the last couple builds with the TUSQ nuts. One was an Earvana, and the other just a standard block style. The Mohel at Warmoth knows how to cut nuts right, so you don't need string trees. Wank on the wang bar all you like, and the guitar obediently returns to tune.

 

[Mor Paul]

Of course, if you've got a shop and the balls...

Ball bearings, that is.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Cutting nuts?  Balls?  Potential to go wrong?  There's got to be a vasectomy joke in there somewhere.

 

[m4rk0]

+

=  the perfect combo!! (the tuners are locking and staggered, so no trees!)

a great alternative for a floyd!!

 

[Musicman418]

What about locking nuts?  *gulps*  Don't wanna know what that is.  The Wilkinson looks nice, but I still kinda want the Floyd for it's better range.  If this thing is any good, I will be going with a Floyd 100% percent:  http://www.allparts.com/Tremol-No-Products-s/273.htm?Click=8173  Do you guys know anything about this?  It's called the Tremol-No.  It's supposed to make your trem equipped guitar be a stop-tail, or dive-only trem, as well as normal trem.  It won't effect your standard trem, due to the lack of springs.  When you're in dive-only or stop-tail mode, you can do double note bends, pop strings, down-tune with no reprecussions.  (Forgot how to spell that...)  So, I'd probably get this setup:

Original Floyd Rose with D-Tuna, and Tremol-No.

I wanna be able to do double bends as well, and probably won't use the up-motion on all of my songs, so I can set it to dive-only mode for some of them.  By the way, does anybody know of a baseplate to cover the tremolo that I can remove without difficulty?

 

[Cagey]

I wouldn't use one, but that's just me. I think it just adds unnecessary complexity and weight. If you just play at home, you've got time to re-tune as necessary between goofing around. If you're on stage, you don't have time to be playing around with adjustments; you bring along another guitar already set up for the change on the tune(s) that need it. Either way, you don't need a Tremol-no. Not that any guitars have a tremolo on them anyway, but I digress <grin>

I did try the Tremsetter once. Also a pain in the shorts. Make the slightest change to anything, and it needed a 15 minute setup again in order to work properly. As a result, the thing was just about permanently out of adjustment and so did no good. But, that's not the same thing as a Tremol-no. The Tremsetter was designed to give you a more reliable return to neutral point, not defeat the vibrato altogether.

 

[Musicman418]

Oh, I wouldn't be using it for alternate tunings, as that's what the D-Tuna is for.  The absolute least it would be able to do is make it much easier to tune, and restring the guitar.  I can set it to stoptail mode for tuning and restringing, that way it will be much easier, and I don't have to worry about the complexity of stringing up a Floyd Rose.  Of course, I'll still have to cut off the ball ends, but the lack of tension will help during string changes.  I wouldn't change it up on gigs, but if I'm playing rhythm guitar, I'd probably put it in Dive-Only/Stoptail mode that way I can get rid of the warble that comes with palm muting.

 

[Cagey]

How much you wanna bet if you tune it locked, then unlock it, that it'll still be in tune? Or, vice-versa? I'm all in on the NOT side of that bet. And what makes you think it'll be easier to string if it's locked? Shouldn't be any different. Then, if you have to cut string ends off, that's yet another tool you've got to carry along and keep track of so it doesn't wander off. "I'll bring it right back, I promise!" Yeah, right. Better bring two or three.

Simplicity, man. It's where it's at. Miracle cures for non-existent problems are for the gullible.

 

[Musicman418]

Actually, I've done a lot of research on it already, and several reviews stated that you could tune it much more easily, and not even have to use the fine-tuners.  As opposed to tuning it with the tuners, locking the nut, and then fine tuning it.  And don't worry, I always take a string cutter/winder with me on gigs.  :laughing7:

 

[Cagey]

Ok. Well, I hope that all works out for you. Obviously, they sell enough of those things to keep making them, so they must have some value.

 

[Musicman418]

Haha, I like it because I can cut the ends of the string off from the tuners, that way I don't have to worry about poking anybodies eye out.  (Trust me.)    And it's easier to take out the old strings by cutting it, that way you won't have as much of a hard time unwinding it at the headstock.  (Of course, that doesn't matter with locking tuners.)

 

[ORCRiST]

That is, you need locking tuners and a GOOD nut. By "good" nut, I mean one of the slippery nylon/graphite parts properly cut, or an LSR roller nut. Given those two things, there's no need for one of those pain-in-the-ass locking nuts and the complications of bridge-mounted tuners and all the mechanical gimcrackery involved with that. Granted, the Transformer/MechWarrior/BattleTech machinery of the Floyd Rose-style design looks impressive on the ass end of your fiddle, but they're really just too much. You want simple. Run a string from the bridge to the tuner, wind it up, and call it a love story. Nothing to remember, nothing to adjust, nothing to worry about, nothing to get in your way. Just shut up and play yer guitar. Plus, they're not terribly expensive, relatively speaking.

You don't want to fight with your guitar. It's supposed to be on your side. Don't turn it into a problem child by making it unnecessarily complicated.

I dunno Cagey, either I'm extremely lucky - or a technical God. I have/had several Floyd's and their bastard children and they've only ever
just worked for me. No woes, no mystery problems, no set-up issues. I mean, a double-locking tremolo setup does NOT have to be complicated,
or hard to use, or finnicky, or...   :dontknow:

And believe me, if my Floyds give me the ability to control a 50ft, PPC and Gauss Rifle totin' metal mountain - I'm THERE.
Now, where's my f-ing neurohelmet?!  :headbang1:

ORC

 

[JamesL]

Drop tuning problem solved  :glasses9:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXRT533hp0&feature=related