Guitars Without Bridge vs. With - Options?
James Lynx
those old ones didn't at least. Obviously if it just has the
tailpiece without a bridge the fine setting of the intonation is
better with the bridge rather than without but with that said what
else are the advanatages of having a bridge over not having a bridge
in terms of playability and so forth. And why did Gibson make those
without bridges?
Thanks,
James
Patrick Keenan
news:cc2aa629.04042...@posting.google.com...
> The old Les Paul jrs didn't have bridges as you know.
All of the ones sold had bridges.
> Well some of
> those old ones didn't at least.
They all did. Some used a simple bridge/tailpiece unit, but that does not
mean they did not have a bridge.
> Obviously if it just has the
> tailpiece without a bridge the fine setting of the intonation is
> better with the bridge rather than without but with that said what
> else are the advanatages of having a bridge over not having a bridge
> in terms of playability and so forth.
Without a bridge, a guitar is not playable. The bridge provides the end
point of the vibrating string length. How it is constructed is not relevant
to its presence - whether it is a separate unit (or more than one) or
combined with the tailpiece.
> And why did Gibson make those
> without bridges?
They didn't.
>
>
> Thanks,
> James
There are no working guitars without bridges. You're confusing an
adjustable bridge with the concept of a bridge itself. Some Gibsons (not
just Les Pauls) came with a combination bridge/stop tailpiece combination -
in fact, the original 1952 Les Paul model used a combination bridge/trapeze
tailpiece. The Tune-O-Matic was introduced later, and required a separate
tailpiece.
I would expect that the models using the bridge/stop tailpeice combination
were configured that way for financial reasons - cheaper in terms of parts,
production, assembly, and setup. This allowed the instrument to be sold
at a lower price point.
HTH
-pk
Nil
news:cc2aa629.04042...@posting.google.com:
I have to be pedantic and point out that a bridge is that piece which
defines the effective end of the string, so the stop tailpiece IS the
"bridge".
Some might say that a bridge with no moving parts would transfer
vibrations between the body and the strings better. And you could make
one that intonated perfectly for a particular gauge of strings. But a
well-made adjustable bridge should sound close enough and gives you
more flexability.
Paul Reed Smith's McCarty model uses a fixed bridge/tailpiece.
Adam Childers
you can adjust the intonation of each string. If it isn't standard it is an
option that you can add. And all non PRS guitars come with this style
tailpiece. Not just the McCartys.
"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94D7854...@204.127.199.17...
Adam Childers
style tail piece, not just the McCartys.
"Adam Childers" <stealin...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WX0jc.17105$S42.145@lakeread03...
SteveL
professionally setup. But if you let it go for long periods of time, you
might be better off with an adjustable bridge of some sort. I prefer Juniors
with only the wraparound though - not the tunamatic / stop tail pair. So
what I do is replace the non adjustable combination until with either a Leo
Quan Badass or a Schaller adjustable bridge/tailpiece combo.
Juniors rule!!!
"James Lynx" <Safron...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc2aa629.04042...@posting.google.com...
RutledgeTW
James Lynx
guitars are bridges too. Yes, this makes sense to me because without
the combo bridge/tailpiece you couldn't play the guitar because it
would just be a tailpiece. But back to the original question, what is
the point besides saving money for their just to be a tailpiece/bridge
combo instead of separate bridge and tailpiece? PRS does it and I'm
sure it's not a cost saving measure since they charge a small fortune
for their guitars. Maybe back in the '50s for Gibson it was a cost
measure but for PRS I doubt it. So what is the advantage of this?
Thanks,
James
"Adam Childers" <stealin...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<i71jc.17109$S42.5873@lakeread03>...
drwow
> Thanks for clearifying that the tailpiece on the Les Paul Jr. type of
> guitars are bridges too. Yes, this makes sense to me because without
> the combo bridge/tailpiece you couldn't play the guitar because it
> would just be a tailpiece. But back to the original question, what is
> the point besides saving money for their just to be a tailpiece/bridge
> combo instead of separate bridge and tailpiece?
The first Les Pauls had a trapeze bridge set up, the next developement
was the stop/bridge, the seperate stop piece and ABR-1 bridge came later.
It was originaly a matter of chronology, not cost.
dw
Nil
news:cc2aa629.04042...@posting.google.com:
> But back to the original question, what is the point besides
> saving money for their just to be a tailpiece/bridge combo instead
> of separate bridge and tailpiece? PRS does it and I'm sure it's
> not a cost saving measure since they charge a small fortune for
> their guitars. Maybe back in the '50s for Gibson it was a cost
> measure but for PRS I doubt it. So what is the advantage of this?
I used to have an SG Jr, which was their bottom of that line. It had
one P90 pickup, a non-adjustable bridge, and a one-piece spring
vibrato. The bridge had holes to accomdate the strings, so I later
removed the vibrato and used the bridge in it's tailpiece/bridge
mode. It intonated well enough for me, at the time.
In Gibson's case, I think that construction was a matter of cost.
They were simple to make, and they could sell it for less. In PRS's
case, I think it is more a matter of giving the guitar more of a
"vintage" vibe. I believe the non-adjustable bridge was a design
choice by Ted McCarty for his namesake model, which someone else
mentioned in this thread is now used on other PRS models. No
advantage to it that I can see.
James Lynx
tailpiece pair? I saw those Schaller's at stewmac.com. I like what I
see.
Thanks,
James
"SteveL" <nospam...@sliberty.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<c6iqc...@news4.newsguy.com>...
Adam Childers
trademark issues with the gibson les paul. Read what PRS has to say here
http://prsguitars.com/info/stoptail.html . But like I said I know they have
developed an upgrade to this style of bridge that allows for individual
string adjustment. I know it is standard on the Tremonti (not the SE, but
the USA made one) and I think it is avalible for purchac seperately.
SteveL
shake the whole guitar, I can rest my palm on it for muting, it just feels
right to me. Maybe its a vibe thing - not sure.
"James Lynx" <Safron...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc2aa629.0404...@posting.google.com...
Boyd Williamson
> I love the way it feels in my right hand. I can grab onto the bridge and
> shake the whole guitar, I can rest my palm on it for muting, it just feels
> right to me. Maybe its a vibe thing - not sure.
THEORETICALLY, and this is a minute point, but the one-piece
bridge/tailpiece is ever-so-slightly better for sustain, because it
eliminates one source of sympathetic vibrations from the tones inherent in
the strings bridged between the tailpiece and bridge.
It's like this: when you pluck the string behind the bridge, you hear a high
"twink" note. When you play normal notes, these notes sympathetically sound
with the body's vibration. Their resonant frequencies slightly fight the
frequency of the note you're actually playing a bit, choking it off. This
also occurs between the nut and keyposts.
Again, on a solid body guitar, the effect is very small. If, however, you
were to take a hollow-body electric, and put pieces of foam under the
strings between the bridge and tail, and between the nut and keys, you may
well start to notice the notes more stable at volume. Stuffing the body with
something to damp vibrations there makes a difference, too.
Of course, removing sympathetic vibrations from the instrument removes some
of it's unique character, as well, as the notes are less complex and don't
have as much "ching and chime." It is unlikely that complicated mathmatical
computations were ever made of these sypathetic vibrations in the design of
any of these guitars, and would vary with different strings and tunings
anyway, so they, good or bad, tend to be a random byproduct of other design
considerations.
But this is one reason why a Junior with a single bridge/tailpiece puts out
a very pure and simple tone, with remarkable sustain at volume.
Personally, I never liked them much because, apart from the fact that you
couldn't adjust the intonation for each string individually, the string near
the ball end often has a winding end point sticking out sideways that would
slice the heel of my hand if I wasn't careful. I'd have to put a couple
strips of duct tape over the strings behind their bridge point to help avoid
this.
Zoid
§c©©t§
RonSonic
>Thanks for clearifying that the tailpiece on the Les Paul Jr. type of
>guitars are bridges too. Yes, this makes sense to me because without
>the combo bridge/tailpiece you couldn't play the guitar because it
>would just be a tailpiece. But back to the original question, what is
>the point besides saving money for their just to be a tailpiece/bridge
>combo instead of separate bridge and tailpiece? PRS does it and I'm
>sure it's not a cost saving measure since they charge a small fortune
>for their guitars. Maybe back in the '50s for Gibson it was a cost
>measure but for PRS I doubt it. So what is the advantage of this?
First there are fewer parts falling off the guitar when you change strings. It's
a simpler cleaner arrangement that has a somewhat different sound and a
substantially different feel bending strings.
This is in the try it and feel it category.
Ron
RonSonic
wrote:
>The wraparound bridg/tailpiece combination is fine if you keep your guitar
>professionally setup. But if you let it go for long periods of time, you
>might be better off with an adjustable bridge of some sort. I prefer Juniors
>with only the wraparound though - not the tunamatic / stop tail pair. So
>what I do is replace the non adjustable combination until with either a Leo
>Quan Badass or a Schaller adjustable bridge/tailpiece combo.
>
>Juniors rule!!!
Then check this one out. I've got it on a Hamer Studio.
http://www.hipshotproducts.com/babygrand.htm
Ron