Removing back plate from guitar with trem

Discussion in 'Guitars in General' started by bilbal, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. bilbal

    bilbal Member

    Messages:
    8,487
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    I have seen this done since I was kid and never understood the reasoning. Why do people remove the back plate on a guitar to expose the springs of a tremolo equipped guitar? What does it, or is it suppose to do?

    Just curious,
    Bill
     
  2. OM Flyer

    OM Flyer Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    An island of blue in a sea of red
    Makes changing strings easier. Looks (arguably) cooler.
     
  3. re-animator

    re-animator Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,255
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Location:
    New York/San Diego
    its mostly voodoo, but some crazies like EJ and Mayer always leave it off. Ostensibly, ever unnecessary part that's screwed onto your guitar will dampen the vibration and hurt the resonance, so taking off the extra plate could open up the tone and sustain a bit more.
     
  4. bilbal

    bilbal Member

    Messages:
    8,487
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    Interesting. Do you think it makes a noticeable difference in resonance or is it more "voodoo" as you say?
     
  5. CitizenCain

    CitizenCain Member

    Messages:
    4,831
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Location:
    Magdalena, NM, US
    I think there's 99% voodoo and 1% benefit. I always thought those guys were like me. I always loose the damn screws when I take the plate off, so it stays off :rotflmao
     
  6. jazzandmetal?

    jazzandmetal? Supporting Member

    Messages:
    8,666
    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    I think guitars sound better acoustically with it removed. It also lets me access the back easier.

    I had my k-line made without one. Also, on strats fenders and fender repros I don't understand why the back plate is not sunk in so it is flush with the body. It irritates me. Silly. I know.


    Oh yeah. OM flyer is correct. It looks cooler!
     
  7. bluesjuke

    bluesjuke Disrespected Elder

    Messages:
    24,154
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Location:
    Gretchen's House, Bluesland, TX.
    I left the cover off of my '56 Relic.
    I had never left one off before but after setting the guitar up when I went to put it back on I just said, "Screw it".


    So I didn't.
     
  8. CitizenCain

    CitizenCain Member

    Messages:
    4,831
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Location:
    Magdalena, NM, US
    Not so silly. I always wondered the same thing. :BITCH

    Or maybe I'm just silly too :AOK
     
  9. littledreamer

    littledreamer Member

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    I'd be to afraid of one of the springs popping out and doing serious damage to delicate areas of my body.:eek:
     
  10. mike80

    mike80 Member

    Messages:
    2,665
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Location:
    Near Lima, Ohio
    I left mine off just for simplicity - changing strings and adjusting the springs. I just never got around to putting them back on, then they would get lost.

    When I first started playing, I thought I was being "trashy" compared to everyone else since all my friends would put theirs back on....now I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who left them off.
     
  11. defaultoprime

    defaultoprime Member

    Messages:
    233
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    I think it makes the body resonate better... perhaps I'm whistling dixie... but hey... that's my story and I'm sticking to it...
     
  12. bluesjuke

    bluesjuke Disrespected Elder

    Messages:
    24,154
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Location:
    Gretchen's House, Bluesland, TX.



    So you're saying it's better for Southern Rock?
     
  13. rollyfoster

    rollyfoster Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,643
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Arrrstin
    and you can smack the springs for cool sounds when yo amp is loouuuuuuuud
     
  14. 57special

    57special Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    4,815
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Location:
    MN
    A vintage style trem is so close( in some setups) to the back cover that recessing it would cause them to touch.
     
  15. jazzandmetal?

    jazzandmetal? Supporting Member

    Messages:
    8,666
    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Good point. Didn't think of that.

    But if you were to remove some plastic on the plate wouldn't it fit? Like a little scoop out where the block might hit. They cut holes in them anyways for the strings.
     
  16. Troubleman

    Troubleman Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Location:
    Remulon V Beta Colony
    I eschew backplates for several reasons:


    • They get in the way if I need to change strings quickly
    • I like banging the trem springs/exposing them to what's coming out of my speaker cabinet at high volume - cool overtones
    • Probably my imagination, but my Strats seem more resonant with the cover off
    • I wear a lot of silk shirts when I play (not in that band anymore), or used to - the edges of some of those plates used to snag my shirts
    • I just plain like the look better
    The only exception was my 1st issue Eric Clapton Strat - its battery was mounted in the corner of the trem pocket, under the trem plate

    jb
     
  17. IndianScout

    IndianScout Member

    Messages:
    343
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    turtle mountain band of chippewa rez
    always take mine off, on my new build I didnt put one on..
     

Share This Page