It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
My own take on this is that I have spent over 35 years setting up Strat trems ... and there's nothing flawed in the Fender six screw design. It's a cock to setup ... but done correctly it will be as stable as the other links in the chain ... the nut and tuners ... allow it to be. There are the odd ones that won't play nice ... and Andy's solution is brilliant for those ... but almost all six string Strat trems can be set up to work properly.
If I was building a Strat from scratch I would certainly put on a Wudtone and save myself some extra work.
Formerly TheGuitarWeasel ... Oil City Pickups ... Oil City Blog 7 String.org profile and message
Hmmm, are you saying that after 35 years of experience of cock to set up problems, some just have the mojo juice and work, whilst some just won't play nice ? So its luck of the draw and / or in any case it takes many years of experience to discover this, learn how to set them up, but there is still nothing flawed?
Seems a bit contradictory and what do you mean by work properly?
if I said.
There are the odd ones that won't be nice ... and UK made handwound pickups are brilliant for those ... but almost all stock pickups work so you really don't need to consider changing them. Although if I was building a Strat from scratch I would certainly put some on.
It would be a pretty daft, meaningless statement that might dissuade folks from considering and enjoying the benefits of some creamy, UK made handwound pickups because the term "work", in the context really doesn't help communicate any of the differences or potential benefits.
Here is a story for ya. A customer in London, I can put you in touch if you want, used to take his strats to a luthier to have them tweeked and set up quite often ( you know the tuning on the bridges, even though they were the best Callaham ones, was always a bit suspect after a good gig).
Anyway he thought he would give one of our Wudtone Constant Pivot bridges a try and fitted it himself. It was same vintage spacing ( he used the existing Callaham, block , arm and saddles) all he had to do was take the old Callaham plate off the block and put the Wudtone one on. The tricky setting of the screws turned out not to be tricky. All he had to do was screw them down until they just touched the plate and then back max 1/8 of a turn so they weren't touching , causing any binding. Immediately he wrote back pretty excited "Andy, you were right about your bridge. The tuning stability is truly impressive and the guitar rings rings like a bell."
After a month or two he bought another to replace a 2nd Callaham and then he wrote again " The two bridge assemblies I got from you are working so well in every respect that I'm thinking the (previously) unthinkable: putting one of those on my lovely Custom Shop 62 reissue. Even though you don't do distressed and it might look a bit weird on a relic, I think tone, action and tuning are more important...
"
Of course we produced him a distressed looking one for his Custom Shop reissue. The sad side to this story is he no longer needs to take his guitars to the Luthier, he has also sold all the his poly covered bodies and had them replaced.
So the moral of the story is not everyone likes things that don't need maintenance going onto guitars. Please don't take this personally but I think there are reasons to propogate such myths.
I think you are also misunderstanding the benefit. The Wudtone Constant Pivot bridge isn't here to save a builder work. Old guitar new guitar, its benefit is that it will give any guitarist a tremolo they can be 100% confident, will deliver, easy set up, wider envelope of trem action along with a lovely body connected vintage tone? The original just don't do dat because its design is flawed.
Now please forgive me. forums are for having a bit of fun arn't they.
I’m sure this will result in a multi-page, ‘he who shouts loudest and longest always wins the argument’. Well, perhaps - but that doesn’t necessarily make it the right answer.
Much, and probably all, of what ICBM is correct:
As long as the screws are backed off enough and the trem is set to floating, there is a single point contact near the top of the screw shaft that does NOT move in operation
The bottom of the trem does not touch the top of the guitar.
The bottom ‘pivot’ is not a pivot at all – it is simply where the trem plate relief angle ends. If it was a pivot, all strats would have a wear mark underneath the trem...and they don’t...and a metal bottom plate would be obligatory...and it isn’t
Strat trems are easy to set up BUT: you have to do it correctly; not all people like floating trems and there are additional issues if you have the springs ‘locked down’.
But it WAS designed as a floating trem and, providing there is not a manufacturing defect or misplacement of the screws, it will work everytime and return to tune everytime.
So, onto the other discussions :
The Wudtone CP looks a very well engineered trem. It is refreshing to have a new take on a design classic with some tangible improvements. It is well presented and deserves to do well – might try one myself.
However, it is important not to overstate the case. Why would I buy one:
Because it looks well engineered
Because it is probably less sensitive to exactly how much you need to back off the screws. It is, to the inexperienced, probably easier to set up. This is because on the original trem, the gap to the screw head has to be large enough to accommodate the full travel – the Wudtone trem has relief cut in to make the size of this gap less sensitive
However, you still do need a gap. Andy himself quotes ‘screw them down....then back max 1/8 of a turn’. It is exactly the same procedure on the original trem except it is more than 1/8 of a turn.
The ‘constant pivot’ arc is, however, open to question. Especially the claim that ‘The arc between the two green arrows on the underside of the plate (B) also creates a constant connection with the body of the guitar for maximum vintage tone and sustain.’ Sorry, that can’t be right if the above drawing is accurate. That would imply a metal to metal slide fit (just envisage where the arrowhead at B would go as the trem lifts). It can’t ‘roll’ on the bottom surface because the contact point A stops it. Logically, there is a gap, just like on a standard trem, at the bottom...in which case this feature cannot possibly affect tone.
Doesn’t stop it being a great trem – and in the commercial world it is perfectly normal to knock the competition and promote the USP of one’s own products – but probably just as effective to be fashionably but confidently understated...
That's the only post I'm doing on this!
I automatically avoid products where the manufacturer deliberately rubbishes the competition, personally. I know I'm not alone, so perhaps Andy may like to rethink this strategy. It's fair for anyone to say that getting the best from a proper Strat trem can be a challenge to those without experience or patience but to rubbish it is wrong. Plus bear in mind that cheap guitars have cheap hardware - Fender included - and in my experience these can be almost impossible to get to work properly in some cases.
Leo was always looking to improve on everything he did - this is true. But this was driven by a desire to innovate and improve - not because he was actually dissatisfied with his design. Plus he couldn't us his original designs on G&L guitars without giving Fender some money and that wasn't going to happen!
So to bring this all to an end - can we all accept that the Fender trem (proper Fender) can work as designed if set correctly and that Andy's redesign offers some improvement over the original that may help especially on guitars with poor quality trem units fitted.
Well first of all @impmann if you go back and read the thread you will find that it is you that has introduced the wording "not fit for purpose" . My wording is clear in the sentence "there is no magical, screw setting or any other tricks with springs/nuts setups to solve this problem. The original plate always works in the same way because of the design flaw and it always delivers the same outcome. Guitarists either get used to living with it, as a compromise in how they play their guitar, or they get a product that is more fit for purpose and fixes it. " and I stand by that statement of fact. It is happening everyday.
I am consistent in stating the original has a design flaw. If Fender want to sue me along with all the other people who state the same on forums , they are going to be very busy, especially trying to prove that statement is false. In terms of actual false statements @andyjr1515 has through his own misunderstanding made some false statement about our product. Now I don't mind anyone questioning my integrity or product claims but when I show them why they have a misunderstanding and so it is then unreasonable to suggest our claims cannot be right. They may wish to think about that in terms of something false and defamatory.
In any case if, I have clarified the misunderstandings that @andyjr1515 may have had with both drawings and explanations. I think it would be common courtesy to communicate that.
I think that's me out, as you just seem to be intent on banging a drum without listening to the rest of the band.
Bye
Instagram
If it's a daft and meaningless statement, then it's one I make all the time.
Formerly TheGuitarWeasel ... Oil City Pickups ... Oil City Blog 7 String.org profile and message
Instagram
Hi Wez,
Hi there,
it isn't those comments that are bemusing. Your statement "Sorry, that can’t be right if the above drawing is accurate.etc"
is actually saying our claims are not true, which calls my integrity into question.
Now I don't mind that, it is a gutsy thing to do. I also appreciate you aiming to understand the product, sharing your concerns. I also appreciate that you have confirmed you made an assumption, read the drawing wrongly. Our claims do hold up to scrutiny and our product delivers on its promises, check out the testimonials. If you have any residual concerns by all means air them here and I will address them to the best of my ability. As far as Wudtone is concerned integrity is everything, without it you really don't have a business.
Plus, no worries, I don't think you meant any harm.
I can't say the same for @impmann though. This defender of the original plate faith has on two occasions , mis quoted me and then used his mis quote as an excuse to be both abusive and attempt to dissuade customers from considering our product.
As far as the latter is concerned.
@impmann decides to states " I automatically avoid products where the manufacturer deliberately rubbishes the competition". I know I'm not alone, so perhaps Andy may like to rethink this strategy." I guess he is trying to suggest I am somehow guilty of this crime and so should be avoided.
Wudtone has merely called it like we see it. The original has a design flaw and we have backed this assertion with diagrams and clear explanations. In that context , I think it is quite malicious and unreasonable of @impmann to suggest something more sinister and unprofessional than that. If any reader does remain concerned then please do not hesitate to contact me via mail@wudtone.com
Please also bear in mind the fact that @impmann 's last topic began with "Gibson are a shower of sh...".
So my question for @impmann is, By your own standards how do you live with yourself ?
You clearly think I'm having a pop at you personally but I'm not. I'm not that sort of person. :-)
So can we leave any personal digs off the public forum, eh?
My suggestion about 'fit for' and 'purpose' was just to be careful, that's all. Words can be taken differently by different people. Clearly my friendly suggestion has been taken badly.
If I have got over my cold/manflu tomorrow, I will give you a ring, Andy to clear the air - as you seem to have got me all wrong, mate.