mustachio
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 178
Quick scenario: Just purchased a new 2018 Les Paul 1958 60th Anniversary from Wildwood. Perfect setup, perfect intonation, chimey, notes ring out—no buzzing. The only thing I don’t like is that overtime (albeit in looong time) the bridge will sink and the high e doesn’t quuuuuuite clear the back of ABR-1, plus when I changed a set of strings for the first time my G string saddle popped out (plus, the G eeever so slightly is dead around the 12-14th fret—but not noticeable plugged in, whatsoever, but...anyway). No bueno.
My thought process: I just had a 2016 SG setup at RS Guitarworks with the prenotched, aged nickel saddles, Faber ABR-59 and I love it. However, Roy had to dress the frets, but no issues, rings out
clearly all over and up to the last fret on all strings.
So, I like the piece of mind that comes with the Faber having the saddles locked in, more saddle travel, tighter fabrication, tolerances. Again: I bought the same nickel aged, pre-notche, Faber ABR-59.
All things being equal to guitar’s neck relief, string guage, thumbwheel screws/posts and tailpiece height, I put the Faber on and adjusted to the action and ballparked the same spacing of the saddles for intonation and as luck would have it only the high e was sharp on the 12th and set it dead on.
Action was reset exactly the same: low E @ 3.5/64ths, high e @ 4/64ths.
Issues: the B has slight sitar buzz open, high e and B strings are dead around 14-19th fret area which was not the case with the Historic ABR-1. Also, the high e and B strings choke out at and above a whole tone. The notched saddles where slightly to the right of the bridge pole pieces.
Resolved issues: the G string is not dead anymore, and the strings have a not as steep angle from the ABR-59 to the tailpiece therefore it clears the back of the ABR-59 without any problem (which I suspect is the intent).
Now, I just can’t live with the e and B string issues. I was expecting a lower mid difference in tone and there IS.
Here are my questions, as I am not a luthier but I understand the physics and I did tinker around with tailpiece height and thumbwheel height but for the sake of keeping a scientific “control” I returned them to the specs.
Could the problem(s) be:
1. The material of the Faber saddles are different to the Historic ABR-1?
2. Faber saddle radius is off?
3. Faber slots on the high e and B are too big (all pre-notches look the same, unlike the Gibson Historic ABR-1 notches are graduated for the string width—which is visiblely noticable) or they need to filed?
4. Thumbwheel posts need to also be upgraded to Faber?
5. Saddle slots on high e and B are slightly too deep (however, all things being equal with action set at 4/64ths on the high e, why would they choke out? Less pressure from decreased pitch from the tailpiece to the saddle slot?)
Anyways, I put the Historic ABR-1 and set it back to as it was and all was as is exactly as before with the slightly dead G string but no choked out notes, ringing out beautifully and slight increase in chime (as it was in the first place).
But I’m curious and was hoping anyone had some insight.
Thanks.
My thought process: I just had a 2016 SG setup at RS Guitarworks with the prenotched, aged nickel saddles, Faber ABR-59 and I love it. However, Roy had to dress the frets, but no issues, rings out
clearly all over and up to the last fret on all strings.
So, I like the piece of mind that comes with the Faber having the saddles locked in, more saddle travel, tighter fabrication, tolerances. Again: I bought the same nickel aged, pre-notche, Faber ABR-59.
All things being equal to guitar’s neck relief, string guage, thumbwheel screws/posts and tailpiece height, I put the Faber on and adjusted to the action and ballparked the same spacing of the saddles for intonation and as luck would have it only the high e was sharp on the 12th and set it dead on.
Action was reset exactly the same: low E @ 3.5/64ths, high e @ 4/64ths.
Issues: the B has slight sitar buzz open, high e and B strings are dead around 14-19th fret area which was not the case with the Historic ABR-1. Also, the high e and B strings choke out at and above a whole tone. The notched saddles where slightly to the right of the bridge pole pieces.
Resolved issues: the G string is not dead anymore, and the strings have a not as steep angle from the ABR-59 to the tailpiece therefore it clears the back of the ABR-59 without any problem (which I suspect is the intent).
Now, I just can’t live with the e and B string issues. I was expecting a lower mid difference in tone and there IS.
Here are my questions, as I am not a luthier but I understand the physics and I did tinker around with tailpiece height and thumbwheel height but for the sake of keeping a scientific “control” I returned them to the specs.
Could the problem(s) be:
1. The material of the Faber saddles are different to the Historic ABR-1?
2. Faber saddle radius is off?
3. Faber slots on the high e and B are too big (all pre-notches look the same, unlike the Gibson Historic ABR-1 notches are graduated for the string width—which is visiblely noticable) or they need to filed?
4. Thumbwheel posts need to also be upgraded to Faber?
5. Saddle slots on high e and B are slightly too deep (however, all things being equal with action set at 4/64ths on the high e, why would they choke out? Less pressure from decreased pitch from the tailpiece to the saddle slot?)
Anyways, I put the Historic ABR-1 and set it back to as it was and all was as is exactly as before with the slightly dead G string but no choked out notes, ringing out beautifully and slight increase in chime (as it was in the first place).
But I’m curious and was hoping anyone had some insight.
Thanks.