Comparing Faber ABR vs Nashville on a 70s and tail piece. Techy Stuff. PICS

Decided to do a little experimenting today. I said I wasn't gonna mess with my new/old LP. I was after a 70s LP, and got one. Tone and all. That said, like many on here we love messing with stuff.

My guitar came with an aftermarket tail piece that been on there for ever, but had new posts. Looks a list strange, but works. I also just bought a Faber ABR, posts, and Tailpiece for my 97 Studio i turned into 50s LP ( Other post ), so I decided to swap it and see if i hear results.

The Faber is very light vs the PW Tailpiece. When I put it on the Studio i noticed a brighter sound, but though it was just a coincidence. I have it paired with Bonamassa PAFS. I really like the result.



The first thing i noticed, was the Faber posts had a little flange that isn't an issue on my other LPs, but the wide tail bushings of the 70s LPs, make it that you cant screw it all the way down.




Heres how much lighter the Faber really is. It makes a tonal difference. I like to call BS on stuff without science and fact, but all you need is your ears on this one.


The ABR dropped on the Post in the 70s LP fine, but the Nashville on the Faber ABR posts I have on the Studio was a snug fit, and the thumbwheels rubbed along the Nashville.

Once I got it all set up, i copied the specs I previously recorded and plugged in.



It looks funny. Maybe its me but its a Norlin era guitar. Yes, it was made in Michigan but to me, it needs a nashville.

As for the tone. I found it was too bright. A little less sustain ( surprisingly ) as I found it to increase on the studio. The Neck pickup sounded weaker and springy. Not bad, but noticeably thinner.

Once i put it all back together with the parts that came with it, it was sounding back to the way i bought it. Thicker, heavier, and not as Middy.

In the end, i believe the Lighter Tailpiece adds treble or more brightness, yet reduces the lower sustain register.

Hope that helps..

great write up, and I think I would reach the same conclusions as well.

I think of the guitar more in "subtractive terms."

It seems in physics and theory, that the guitar with the highest attainable density and PRF would somehow ring more free, have more volume and sustain, lack dead spots, and thus sound more "musical" but that latter aspect is one a novice guitar builder will in time, freely admit to, that his metal steel clunker is not perhaps the most "musical" sounding one. Paul Reed Smith has often spoken of this "subtractive" idea many times, though I'm not the biggest fan of his guitars- but that's a personal taste thing and hardly a blight on his reputation which speaks for itself (but I digress).

So we start by taking away what we can, replacing steel with wood for one.

In that same train of thought, I'm not surprised you noticed a large difference between tailpieces.

The most well travelled path to burst tone probably lies in aluminum lightweight tailpieces, perhaps if you were to take my subtractive theory all the way; you found yours in a much heavier tailpiece Different tailpieces for different folks. I like both myself for different guitars.

In physics at least, the heaviest (and thus in this case, the densest) tailpiece should have more of everything, and thus sound more robust and display more sustain, but the lightweight will simply by physical property have less of those qualities, and thus "seem" bright and the higher frequencies "boosted," when in reality, everything else but the highs are attenuated. A physical "defect" perhaps, but resulting in a more pleasing tone to some. Again for you, you liked the fullness of the tone, so that works too

Yup. Well said. On my KM I want 70s rock. Through the JMP it sounds killer. At the same time on my Studio Refin, it’s all lightweight and 50s spec, and has a totally different sound. I also don’t top wrap the 70s one and use 10s. What can I say, I loved it out of the shop.


Normaly im a top wrap 11s guy