tuneomatic bridge question....

[Guest icantbuyafender]

Am I the only one who actually likes the newer epiphone "locktone" bridges and tailpieces?

 

I can get over the retaining wire, and the narrower profile (in comparison to a gotoh or tonepros or graphtech).

 

Does it matter which way the intonation adjustment screw heads face?

 

Epi puts em on facing the humbuckers... Tonepros and other companies do the heads facing the tailpiece...

 

Does it matter?

 

Just wanna know if theres any real significant reason for them to face a certain way.

[Ron G]

Whichever way is easier for screwdriver access.

[brianh]

Seen 'em both ways, but facing the PUPS is factory.

[carverman]

Well none of the "factory" orientation makes any sense to me. I ended up reversing

the t-o-m on mine because it was easier to adjust from the tailpiece side with a

jewelers screwdriver than the other way around and you don't risky scratching

up a thinly gold plated p_up either.

 

What I also don't understand about these Gibson t-o-ms is why the saddles on the

bass side have factory installed reverse angles to the treble side. You would think

that having the string notch filed on a slight angle with the the slope favoring the

angle of the strings...(coming off the tp) would make more sense.

Could there be some historic reason..like the early wrap around tp that set the

specification to do it that way?

 

In some ways, this is similar to the pole pieces on the humbuckers being traditionally

set towards the neck and towards the bridge. I read (in an interview with Seth

Lover), that he didn't think it made any difference which which position the pole pieces

were facing. Gibson decided to install them that way because it looked better.

 

Now does that make sense? If you analyze the Gibson style humbucker there

is a N (north)coil and a S (south) coil that is magnetically and electrically opposite

polarity and both coils pick up the sound vibrations and the common mode

noise/hum is cancelled out.

 

 

So it shouldn't make any difference electrically, but maybe..there is the consideration

of having the adjustable pole pieces closer to what one would call the "rythmn spot",

next to the end of the FB, and the bridge p_up producing more treble,

by having the pole piece adjusters closer to the bridge?

[Strumbone]

Well none of the "factory" orientation makes any sense to me. I ended up reversing

the t-o-m on mine because it was easier to adjust from the tailpiece side with a

jewelers screwdriver than the other way around and you don't risky scratching

up a thinly gold plated p_up either.

 

What I also don't understand about these Gibson t-o-ms is why the saddles on the

bass side have factory installed reverse angles to the treble side. You would think

that having the string notch filed on a slight angle with the the slope favoring the

angle of the strings...(coming off the tp) would make more sense.

Could there be some historic reason..like the early wrap around tp that set the

specification to do it that way?

 

In some ways' date=' this is similar to the pole pieces on the humbuckers being traditionally

set towards the neck and towards the bridge. I read (in an interview with Seth

Lover), that he didn't think it made any difference which which position the pole pieces

were facing. Gibson decided to install them that way because it looked better.

 

Now does that make sense? If you analyze the Gibson style humbucker there

is a N (north)coil and a S (south) coil that is magnetically and electrically opposite

polarity and both coils pick up the sound vibrations and the common mode

noise/hum is cancelled out.

 

 

So it shouldn't make any difference electrically, but maybe..there is the consideration

of having the adjustable pole pieces closer to what one would call the "rythmn spot",

next to the end of the FB, and the bridge p_up producing more treble,

by having the pole piece adjusters closer to the bridge? [/quote']

 

 

Very thought-provoking questions. I know I'd be interested in the answers.

[animalfarm]

So it shouldn't make any difference electrically' date=' but maybe..there is the consideration

of [b']having the adjustable pole pieces closer to what one would call the "RHYTHM spot",

next to the end of the FB, and the bridge pup producing more treble[/b],

by having the pole piece adjusters closer to the bridge?

 

Ahhh, "Grasshopper", you have made astute observation. You are correct - the

pole pieces near the FRETBOARD are (Duhhhhh...) near the CENTER of the string,

and will produce a different sound than the pole pieces at the END of the string.

That being said, let me introduce even MORE confusion, and a BETTER way to tune

your guitar...

Pickup selector switch to RHYTHM, turn volume to MAX, turn tone to ZERO.

Now, using ANY electronic tuner ( I use a Korg) , gently pluck the string -

the note the tuner "hears" is from the CENTER of the string and is the

purest form of the note as opposed to the "harmonic version" of the note

that would be "heard" by the tuner if Bridge pup is used. I'm totally serious,

I use this method to tune and set intonation.

[Goldie]

Ahhh' date=' "Grasshopper", you have made astute observation. You are correct - the

pole pieces near the FRETBOARD are (Duhhhhh...) near the CENTER of the string,

and will produce a different sound than the pole pieces at the END of the string.

That being said, let me introduce even MORE confusion, and a BETTER way to tune

your guitar...

Pickup selector switch to RHYTHM, turn volume to MAX, turn tone to ZERO.

Now, using ANY electronic tuner ( I use a Korg) , gently pluck the string -

the note the tuner "hears" is from the CENTER of the string and is the

[b']purest form of the note[/b] as opposed to the "harmonic version" of the note

that would be "heard" by the tuner if Bridge pup is used. I'm totally serious,

I use this method to tune and set intonation.

 

All good stuff and correct thinking. I tune a little differently, but similar.

On neck pu., but I pluck as close to normal as possible, tuning to that. Depending on the strength of the pu, I may roll the volume back a little so as to not drive the signal so hard. I like your idea off rolling off the tone to reduce overtones, but I think I'm getting that by backing off the volume.

 

from Carverman;

"What I also don't understand about these Gibson t-o-ms is why the saddles on the

bass side have factory installed reverse angles to the treble side."

 

They do that for the intonation. The casting is too narrow to have all the 'meat' of the saddle facing the same way. If you can't quite get the string intoned, you can turn them around and get another 1/8" of travel, providing the screws are long enough. They usually bottom out against the opposite side, but not always. Any groove I have is just deep enough to hold the string in place, and in that case I don't think it makes much difference about any back bevels(like in a nut).

[Figstrum]

Am I the only one who actually likes the newer epiphone "locktone" bridges and tailpieces?

 

I can get over the retaining wire' date=' and the narrower profile (in comparison to a gotoh or tonepros or graphtech).

 

Does it matter which way the intonation adjustment screw heads face?

 

Epi puts em on facing the humbuckers... Tonepros and other companies do the heads facing the tailpiece...

 

Does it matter?

 

Just wanna know if theres any real significant reason for them to face a certain way.

 

[/quote']

 

Well... What was the resolution to which way the intonation screws face?

[animalfarm]

Well... What was the resolution to which way the intonation screws face?

 

I suppose it's a matter of personal preference, BUT -

I prefer the bridge intonation adjustment screws to face the

fretboard. On the tailpiece side, you have essentially a 1 1/2"

long wire to try and fit your screw driver next to and make solid

contact with the screw slot so you can turn it. If you're off, you

stand a chance of the screwdriver blade slipping and marring the

slot. On the fretboard side, the guitar string ("wire") is MUCH longer,

allowing the string to be gently moved to the side with ease.

I always de-tune the string BEFORE adjusting intonation - string moves

easier and there's very little stress on the bridge saddle and screw when

moving the saddle. Then, re-tune and recheck intonation. It may initially

SOUND like a pain, but it's not, just adds a few de-tune/re-tune steps,

and saves wear and tear on the bridge. I've had zero problems with this

process. "Das" whut ah do....

[Vic Flick]

In some ways' date=' this is similar to the pole pieces on the humbuckers being traditionally

set towards the neck and towards the bridge. I read (in an interview with Seth

Lover), that he didn't think it made any difference which which position the pole pieces

were facing. Gibson decided to install them that way because it looked better.

 

Now does that make sense? If you analyze the Gibson style humbucker there

is a N (north)coil and a S (south) coil that is magnetically and electrically opposite

polarity and both coils pick up the sound vibrations and the common mode

noise/hum is cancelled out.

 

 

So it shouldn't make any difference electrically, but maybe..there is the consideration

of having the adjustable pole pieces closer to what one would call the "rythmn spot",

next to the end of the FB, and the bridge p_up producing more treble,

by having the pole piece adjusters closer to the bridge? [/quote']

 

The coil with the screws is slightly dominant. The screws can get closer to the strings than the slugs, plus the slugs are buried beneath the metal cover. So theoretically, the screw coil is the main pickup and the slug coil is the reverse coil to buck the hum. Many feel the ideal place to place the main coil is at the 24th fret and bridge, the octaves. Think of the harmonics at the 12th fret when you lightly touch the string and pluck it. So if you put the screw coil facing the neck on a 22 fret guitar, the screws would fall just about where the 24th fret would be.

 

Now you can't mount the humbucker where the bridge is, but following the logic you would want the screws as close to the bridge as possible.

 

However, while the 24th fret is the octave, it is also the node (dead spot) for the 3rd overtone. So in actuality, the second coil is actually in a better position to pick up the overtone.

 

Now there are people who claim uncovered pickups sound different, and I would suggest part of the reason is that the slugs on the secondary coil are no longer shielded by the cover, so the are better able to pick up the overtones. Some feel this accounts for the twangy sound of Gretsch Filtertrons, because they have two equal coils with uncovered screws.

 

It could be argued that the missing overtone contributes the warmth of the Strat neck pickup, and could contribute to muddy neck humbuckers. Ed Roman is a staunch believer in 24 fret guitars for this reason. Who knows???

[carverman]

The coil with the screws is slightly dominant. The screws can get closer to the strings than the slugs' date=' plus the slugs are buried beneath the metal cover. So theoretically, the screw coil is the main pickup and the slug coil is the reverse coil to buck the hum. Many feel the ideal place to place the main coil is at the 24th fret and bridge, the octaves. Think of the harmonics at the 12th fret when you lightly touch the string and pluck it. So if you put the screw coil facing the neck on a 22 fret guitar, the screws would fall just about where the 24th fret would be. [/quote']

 

It makes sense to me, JerryMac...but when Seymour Duncan asked Seth Lover that specific question in probably the last interview with him, he mentioned that it didn't seem to make any real difference as far as he was concerned,

but he decided to make them happy... by turning the pickups around. Of course, the slugs were already in the

primary coil to make it stronger than the humbucking coil..with or without the adjustable screws.

 

Of course, he was just the inventor.. and I don't think he played guitar, but others did test the new humbucker before it went into production.

Maybe it was just his perception of his design, and not the finessed final placement of each pickup based

on guitar players evaluations of both orientations?

 

here's the full interview..

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/seth.html

 

and here's the specific question on that interview..

 

<quote>

...finally decided they wanted screws in there, so I put adjusting screws in it for them, then the question they asked me then was which way should those screws set? (sit). Should they set up or down? Well you’ve got to give them an answer.. so I decided to take the one closest to the fingerboard and put the screws facing it and the one closest to the bridge towards the bridge, laugh...that made them happy, they had a set way that it should be set, it only amounted to turning the pickup around... <endquote>

 

 

However, while the 24th fret is the octave, it is also the node (dead spot) for the 3rd overtone. So in actuality, the second coil is actually in a better position to pick up the overtone.

 

That is also very interesting point, in regards to which way the pickup coils should be facing.

[Vic Flick]

It makes sense to me' date=' JerryMac...but when Seymour Duncan asked Seth Lover that specific question in probably the last interview with him, he mentioned that it didn't seem to make any real difference as far as he was concerned,

but he decided to make them happy... by turning the pickups around. Of course, the slugs were already in the

primary coil to make it stronger than the humbucking coil..with or without the adjustable screws.

 

Of course, he was just the inventor.. and I don't think he played guitar, but others did test the new humbucker before it went into production.

Maybe it was just his perception of his design, and not the finessed final placement of each pickup based

on guitar players evaluations of both orientations?

 

here's the full interview..

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/seth.html

 

and here's the specific question on that interview..

 

 

...finally decided they wanted screws in there, so I put adjusting screws in it for them, then the question they asked me then was which way should those screws set? (sit). Should they set up or down? Well you’ve got to give them an answer.. so I decided to take the one closest to the fingerboard and put the screws facing it and the one closest to the bridge towards the bridge, laugh...that made them happy, they had a set way that it should be set, it only amounted to turning the pickup around...

 

That is also very interesting point, in regards to which way the pickup coils should be facing.

 

 

 

I have read that interview before, and it kinda sounds like unintelligent design!!! He designs the pickup with identical coils, puts the both under the cover, and then changes the design to appease the sales department. And doesn't consider the consequences of the changes. If that's the case, he's no Leo Fender. I mean Leo was more a tinkerer, trying things until he got it right. Pickups mounted all over the place, neck pickup at the octave, middle pickup quacking away, bridge pickup mounted at an odd angle...

 

I think most people associate the humbucker with Gibson, but Ray Butts was actually working on it as early as 1955. I believe the Filtertron actually predate the Gibson humbucker, they were introduced in mid 1957, but Butts, Atkins & Gretsch were slow in applying for the patten. The Filtertron, with it's smaller coils limiting the the number of winds and lower output, was designed to retain the twang of the single coil Dynasonics (DeArmonds).

 

Gretsch Filtertron

 

I guess my point is that there seemed to be a lot of thought given to these designs, after all Gretsch and Atkins wanted the new pickups to sound like a Gretsch, and I'm sure Seth Lover designed his humbucker with Gibson's stable of jazz players in mind. I wouldn't doubt that Lover believed that Gibson's insistence on having adjusting screws compromised his design, and at that point he wasn't inclined to do a lot of testing to get it right. He probably figured he already had it right, and if they wanted to mess around with it for the sake of a selling point, so be it. And someone of his expertise would have known instinctively how to position the screws, so when asked, he gave the logical answer although he might not have done a lot of experimentation. I'm sure that Gretsch's development of their pickup had a lot to do with it, after all the Filtertron had two sets of screws, and getting the humbucker to the market ASAP was critical. It was probably a last minute change, and you can almost sense Lover's frustration when he said, "I wanted them to sell it without any adjusting screws because I found that with this there was much difference between the first and second strings like there is on most of the old non adjustable type there was quite a difference in the first & second string but this didn’t seem to have that major difference, and I thought it was not necessary to have pole pieces...well when you take away a talking point from a salesman it’s like breaking off your arm...." He then goes on to add that the screws did alter the magnetic flow, "It would change the direction of the magnetic field out the top and also the bottom..."

 

Sales Department trumps Genius!!!

[carverman]

I think most people associate the humbucker with Gibson' date=' but Ray Butts was actually working on it as early as 1955. I believe the Filtertron actually predate the Gibson humbucker, they were introduced in mid 1957, but Butts, Atkins & Gretsch were slow in applying for the patten. The Filtertron, with it's smaller coils limiting the the number of winds and lower output, was designed to retain the twang of the single coil Dynasonics (DeArmonds).

 

[center'][/center]

Gretsch Filtertron

 

Yes, I've heard about Ray Butts..he was an unsung god in the pickup world. It's interesting to see the Filtertron

disassembled to see the narrow single coils compared to the fatter ones used on the PAF humbucker.

It would seem to me, that both designers were working with different frequency response specifications

to arrive at the characteristic signature sound of each style of pickup.

 

 

 

I guess my point is that there seemed to be a lot of thought given to these designs, after all Gretsch and Atkins wanted the new pickups to sound like a Gretsch, and I'm sure Seth Lover designed his humbucker with Gibson's stable of jazz players in mind.

 

That makes a lot of sense to me. Both designers didn't just come up with those by accident. There had to be

a lot of input from many people.

 

I wouldn't doubt that Lover believed that Gibson's insistence on having adjusting screws compromised his design, and at that point he wasn't inclined to do a lot of testing to get it right. He probably figured he already had it right, and if they wanted to mess around with it for the sake of a selling point, so be it.

 

This seemed to be the normal modus operendi with Gibson sales in those days. They had to compete with the

other manufacturers of guitars..and if those guitars had screws, I'm sure the sales people would insist on the

same for his humbucker design. He already had the slugs in the primary coil for better magnetic response, so

his reluctance to the screws as just another "window dressing" to him at a time when he was ready to set

the patent probably had something to do with it. He also mentions that he had a hard time with the patent

on the PAF, as there were several humbucker patents out already. To get around that, he (they) had to

put in some additional mechanical "feature" that was later removed in production models.

 

And someone of his expertise would have known instinctively how to position the screws, so when asked, he gave the logical answer although he might not have done a lot of experimentation. I'm sure that Gretsch's development of their pickup had a lot to do with it, after all the Filtertron had two sets of screws, and getting the humbucker to the market ASAP was critical.

 

Well Gibson had their shortfalls in getting somethings into production faster ( in some cases).

I read a bit about some of them in the McCarty book. Sometimes they just did things a certain way for

expediency, to regret that decision later... when it came back to haunt them.

 

It was probably a last minute change, and you can almost sense Lover's frustration when he said, "I wanted them to sell it without any adjusting screws because I found that with this there wasn't much difference between the first and second strings like there is on most of the old non adjustable type there was quite a difference in the first & second string but this didn’t seem to have that major difference, and I thought it was not necessary to have pole pieces...well when you take away a talking point from a salesman it’s like breaking off your arm...."

 

Well maybe he was on the right track..I remember installing the De-Armonds 2000 SC (with the adjustable magnetic

slug pole pieces) on my Epi Triumph, and I had to turn the 2nd string down quite a bit compared to the 1st .

I don't notice this difference as much on any the humbuckers I'm using now.

 

Sales Department trumps Genius!!!

 

or..when push comes to shove..the sales dept always wins!

[Vic Flick]

That makes a lot of sense to me. Both designers didn't just come up with those by accident. There had to be a lot of input from many people.

 

I uploaded a page from a book about this subject' date=' but I forgot to include it in my last post:

 

[img']http://home.earthlink.net/~jkmcleer/Guitars/pup_pos.jpg[/img]

 

Here's the ironic part. From what I understand, as you play down the neck the node points move closer to the bridge. So using that to determine where to locate the pickup only works when you play open strings. Or am I missing something??? Perhaps that's why some guitars sound great when you play them in certain positions. Now I love playing leads around the 12th fret in the key of E. To my ear, it sings. Coincidentally, if you play at the 12th fret, the node point has moved from the 24th fret position to a spot 1/2 way between the 24th fret and the bridge.

 

The interesting thing is that the fret locations get farther apart at an increasing or logarithmic rate as you move from the bridge toward the nut. However nodes occur at integer divisions of the scale. The illustration shows where the nodes are located when notes are played open. The nodes progress toward the bridge as you play notes down the fret board. So if you played with a capo over the 12th fret, all of the nodes move 50% toward the bridge. - John Johnson Electrical Engineer & Physicist on the Ed Roman web site.

 

So maybe it's all just theoretical BS, and that it's more a matter of personal preference than physics. What fits your playing style. Now I prefer the sound both pickups on, and maybe that's due to one pickup adding overtones missed by the other. I'm not sure there's a definitive answer, but it's an interesting conversation.

 

Alvy Singer: What's the difference? It's all mental masturbation.

Annie Hall: Oh, well, now we're finally getting to a subject you know something about.

Alvy Singer: Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love.

[Bender 4 Life]

I like it !

I Like the one on my Sheraton II

" " " " " " '56 Gold Top

" " " " " " Agile AL-3000 & it's plated with nickel, not chrome (adjuster heads facing the p'ups BTW)

[Figstrum]

I suppose it's a matter of personal preference' date=' BUT -

I prefer the bridge intonation adjustment screws to face the

fretboard. On the tailpiece side, you have essentially a 1 1/2"

long wire to try and fit your screw driver next to and make solid

contact with the screw slot so you can turn it. If you're off, you

stand a chance of the screwdriver blade slipping and marring the

slot. On the fretboard side, the guitar string ("wire") is MUCH longer,

allowing the string to be gently moved to the side with ease.

I always de-tune the string BEFORE adjusting intonation - string moves

easier and there's very little stress on the bridge saddle and screw when

moving the saddle. Then, re-tune and recheck intonation. It may initially

SOUND like a pain, but it's not, just adds a few de-tune/re-tune steps,

and saves wear and tear on the bridge. I've had zero problems with this

process. "Das" whut ah do....[/quote']

 

Thank you for your reply. So simple, but yet so complicated........ I say... I will let my tech make the decision. Hahaha...

[carverman]

I uploaded a page from a book about this subject' date=' but I forgot to include it in my last post:

 

Here's the ironic part. From what I understand, as you play down the neck the node points move closer to the bridge. So using that to determine where to locate the pickup only works when you play open strings. Or am I missing something??? Perhaps that's why some guitars sound great when you play them in certain positions. Now I love playing leads around the 12th fret in the key of E. To my ear, it sings. Coincidentally, if you play at the 12th fret, the node point has moved from the 24th fret position to a spot 1/2 way between the 24th fret and the bridge.

 

It's all based on the theory that a string that is fretted will sound higher in pitch than a open string, so consequentially

the harmonic nodes of the string will change position along the string.

Here is a wiki explanation with some diagrams to better illustrate what is happening.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_harmonics

 

Seth Lover also mentioned that the fundamental purpose of the magnet is to magnetize a section of the string

over the coils, and once magnetized in that position, the string stays magnetized..at least for quite a while.

I decided to test this theory with a compass and iron filings on a bass E-string from one of my guitars.

The theory proved to be correct with iron filings being attracted along a N-S portion of the string in two places.

Directly over the neck and bridge of both pickups.

Now..this is electrical theory of how a pickup works and nothing to do with the musical vibrational tones/overtones and harmonic nodes of the string.

 

 

So maybe it's all just theoretical BS, and that it's more a matter of personal preference than physics. What fits your playing style. Now I prefer the sound both pickups on, and maybe that's due to one pickup adding overtones missed by the other. I'm not sure there's a definitive answer, but it's an interesting conversation.

 

Well at some point theoretical and practical merge. Every different style of pickup has a different signature sound,

just like acoustically some guitars sound better than others. So it's not just the type of strings, how they

vibrate or the positioning of the pickups. Each one of these factors, along with amplification and frequency equalization

(bass/mid/treble), and yes, the playing style, will all combine to produce a unique sound.

 

So, as a final question to this discussion..would turning the pickup around so that the pole piece screws are

a slightly different position from where they were..change the sound that much?(I am assuming here that the respective string gets re-magnetized to the new magnetic orientation of the pickup(s) turned around.

[Stig]

What I also don't understand about these Gibson t-o-ms is why the saddles on the

bass side have factory installed reverse angles to the treble side. You would think

that having the string notch filed on a slight angle with the the slope favoring the

angle of the strings...(coming off the tp) would make more sense.

Could there be some historic reason..like the early wrap around tp that set the

specification to do it that way?

 

I think the slope of the saddles is meant to get the point of contact with the string as close to the edge of the bridge as possible. Notice how your low saddle is usually pinned to the bridge side, and the high E is pretty close to the pickup. The slope favors adjustability in the direction that the saddle is usually adjusted.

[carverman]

I think the slope of the saddles is meant to get the point of contact with the string as close to the edge of the bridge as possible. Notice how your low saddle is usually pinned to the bridge side' date=' and the high E is pretty close to the pickup. The slope favors adjustability in the direction that the saddle is usually adjusted.

 

Ok, maybe you have a point..but following that argument..my custom made LP type has a LR Baggs piezo t-o-m

bridge. I belive it is made in Germany..not sure who the manufacturer is..but the individual piezo string saddles

are just oval rounded with a string slot in the middle. The slope comes from the height of the tp and the height

of the t-o-m setting, so this defies the theory that the sloped saddles..reversed for the 3 treble strings actually

do something besides looking..well different!

 

I have the t-o-m installed for the best intonation. Although I have about 1/2 inch movement on each individual

saddle, the saddles are basically around midpoint in the adjustment range allowed by the bridge design

..with some variations of course. The adjusting screws point towards the TP.

[Stig]

Ok' date=' maybe you have a point..but following that argument..my custom made LP type has a LR Baggs piezo t-o-m

bridge. I belive it is made in Germany..not sure who the manufacturer is..but the individual piezo string saddles

are just oval rounded with a string slot in the middle. The slope comes from the height of the tp and the height

of the t-o-m setting, so this defies the theory that the sloped saddles..reversed for the 3 treble strings actually

do something besides looking..well different!

 

I have the t-o-m installed for the best intonation. Although I have about 1/2 inch movement on each individual

saddle, the saddles are basically around midpoint in the adjustment range allowed by the bridge design

..with some variations of course. The adjusting screws point towards the TP. [/quote']

 

A bridge with the high point in the center of the saddle (like a roller) is simply designed differently. The TOM does the slope thing. The Baggs doesn't. It may have more back-to-front travel space than a standard TOM.