ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: Nashville Tele vs proposed Tel-o-caster!

5/5/2003 5:32 PM
Mark Hammer	Re: Nashville Tele vs proposed Tel-o-caster! The shot is not all that amazing. Just park anything you want on your average $50 scanner, and away you go. If anything, I reduced the resolution to make for a small file size. You can actually buy compensated 3-barrel saddles from Stew-Mac (that may be what you are referring to). They have the threaded hole for the forward/backward (sharp/flat) screw drilled at a slight angle in anticipation of standard inter-string offsets. Looking at the picture though, I think the pick-guard needs a bit more work around the lower bout cutaway. The pickguard curve needs to run more parallel to the cutaway curve.

5/5/2003 5:32 PM

Mark Hammer

Re: Nashville Tele vs proposed Tel-o-caster!

The shot is not all that amazing. Just park anything you want on your average $50 scanner, and away you go. If anything, I reduced the resolution to make for a small file size.

You can actually buy compensated 3-barrel saddles from Stew-Mac (that may be what you are referring to). They have the threaded hole for the forward/backward (sharp/flat) screw drilled at a slight angle in anticipation of standard inter-string offsets.

Looking at the picture though, I think the pick-guard needs a bit more work around the lower bout cutaway. The pickguard curve needs to run more parallel to the cutaway curve.

5/5/2003 5:54 PM

Eric H

quote:
"The shot is not all that amazing"

It is if you don't have easy access to a scanner --and $50 here...$50 there...

quote:
"You can actually buy compensated 3-barrel saddles from Stew-Mac (that may be what you are referring to)."

Yep. The intonation on a stock 3-barrel Tele is a bit too off for me.

quote:
"The pickguard curve needs to run more parallel to the cutaway curve"

Now that you mention it...

-Eric

5/5/2003 8:58 PM
Mark Hammer	Actually, there is no reason why you couldn't re-machine an existing 3-barrel bridge without having to angle them. All you're really taking about is moving the string's "resting place" a little more forward or backward. You can do that with a small file. The net result will be that the string will actually sit a little lower, but you can offset that to some extent with the height adjustment screws.

5/5/2003 8:58 PM

Mark Hammer

Actually, there is no reason why you couldn't re-machine an existing 3-barrel bridge without having to angle them. All you're really taking about is moving the string's "resting place" a little more forward or backward. You can do that with a small file. The net result will be that the string will actually sit a little lower, but you can offset that to some extent with the height adjustment screws.

5/5/2003 11:25 PM
Steve A.	Compensated tele barrels Mark: When this subject first came up here, the only source we could find was like $25 plus s/h for 3 saddles... But Stew-Mac is selling them now for about $11(?) a set so I picked up 3 sets but haven't put them in yet (I was waiting for my semi-annual "changing of the strings".. doot-da-do!) With the cheap ones I got the angles are fixed but they should work fine with the typical 9-42 or 10-46 sets of strings. If you want to cough up more loot you can get a set of saddles which are fully adjustable. The idea of each bridge on each guitar having to be adjusted for proper intonation is a crock of sht, assuming that you stick with the standard string sizes. I think that if you set up the equation right, you could figure out the correct location for each saddle mathematically, and it shouldn't vary from guitar to guitar unless the neck was badly warped (or something like that). My new Gibson LP Jr has one of their modern intonated wraparound bridges and it is dead-on accurate with a set of 10-46 strings. Perhaps Gibson could make a few different compensated bridges to handle the other gauges, or maybe just one other one for wound G strings. Of course with a typical strat bridge there would be no advantage to having the saddles fixed, but I was just ranting about the Gibson site suggesting that the Tun-a-Matic bridge was one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century (at least of those pertaining to guitars). A properly intonated wraparound bridge rocks* and I think that they should offer it as an option on many or most of their models. Steve Ahola

5/5/2003 11:25 PM

Steve A.

Compensated tele barrels

Mark:

When this subject first came up here, the only source we could find was like $25 plus s/h for 3 saddles...

    But Stew-Mac is selling them now for about $11(?) a set so I picked up 3 sets but haven't put them in yet (I was waiting for my semi-annual "changing of the strings".. doot-da-do!)

    With the cheap ones I got the angles are fixed but they should work fine with the typical 9-42 or 10-46 sets of strings. If you want to cough up more loot you can get a set of saddles which are fully adjustable.

    The idea of each bridge on each guitar having to be adjusted for proper intonation is a crock of sh*t, assuming that you stick with the standard string sizes. I think that if you set up the equation right, you could figure out the correct location for each saddle mathematically, and it shouldn't vary from guitar to guitar unless the neck was badly warped (or something like that).

    My new Gibson LP Jr has one of their modern intonated wraparound bridges and it is dead-on accurate with a set of 10-46 strings. Perhaps Gibson could make a few different compensated bridges to handle the other gauges, or maybe just one other one for wound G strings.

    Of course with a typical strat bridge there would be no advantage to having the saddles fixed, but I was just ranting about the Gibson site suggesting that the Tun-a-Matic bridge was one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century (at least of those pertaining to guitars). A properly intonated wraparound bridge rocks and I think that they should offer it as an option on many or most of their models.

Steve Ahola

5/6/2003 6:42 AM

Eric H

quote:
"but I was just ranting about the Gibson site suggesting that the Tun-a- Matic bridge was one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century (at least of those pertaining to guitars). A properly intonated wraparound bridge rocks and I think that they should offer it as an option on many or most of their models."

It only took them around 30 years to lose the intonation for the wound "G" --thank PRS for that.
Last time I checked Stew-Mac's still had the wound "G" intonation

-Eric

5/29/2003 6:14 PM

jaysg

Re: Nashville Tele vs proposed Tel-o-caster!

Dead thread I know, but I just noticed this:

quote:
"The classic strat sounds are the neck pickup and the notched positions... I find the bridge pickup alone to be fairly useless, especially with the stock wiring (no tone control connected to it)."

I just dismantled a strat to salvage parts for my son's lefty strat. I had re-wired the tone pots for neck & middle on the middle tone pot, and the bridge on the far tone pot. I lived with it like that for a few years. I found it very useful. IMO, it's the way to do it and I'm baffled as to how the original setup came about. tia

5/29/2003 11:41 PM
Steve A.	jaysg: IMO, it's the way to do it and I'm baffled as to how the original setup came about. Well, they came out with a strat in the mid-50's when a lot of the amps around were cathode biased, which can have a darker sound than a fixed biased amp. So maybe they thought that there was a need for a super bright bridge pickup... ? Another theory: the strat was supposed to be an "anti-telecaster". (See the new Musician's Friend catalog for details on that.)The original tele wiring harness had one position with the tone cap fully engaged (like with the tone control set to "0") so maybe that is why Fender originally came up with a "no load" arrangement for the bridge pickup. The way you wired it makes a lot more sense. --Thanks! Steve Ahola

5/29/2003 11:41 PM

Steve A.

jaysg:

IMO, it's the way to do it and I'm baffled as to how the original setup came about.

    Well, they came out with a strat in the mid-50's when a lot of the amps around were cathode biased, which can have a darker sound than a fixed biased amp. So maybe they thought that there was a need for a super bright bridge pickup... ?

    Another theory: the strat was supposed to be an "anti-telecaster". (See the new Musician's Friend catalog for details on that.)The original tele wiring harness had one position with the tone cap fully engaged (like with the tone control set to "0") so maybe that is why Fender originally came up with a "no load" arrangement for the bridge pickup.

    The way you wired it makes a lot more sense.

--Thanks!

Steve Ahola

Page 5 of 6