Originally posted by David Myka
I love it and so do my clients that have it on their guitars. Personally it is my favorite trem design by a longshot and Eric Stets is a great guy to work with. If you have a guitar to retrofit or one you designing with a builder give him a call. He can customize them if he doesn't have what you need already.
I'm simply referring to a straight stringpull headstock design. Nothing more.Originally posted by muddy
i'm not sure i understand what you mean re straight stringpull, at least as regards this, matte. headstock, yeah, of course. but the nearest to a "straight pull" would probably only be afforded by a locking bridge, ala floyd. izzat what you mean?
Originally posted by Matte
Absolutely. Just dowel the tuner post holes and redrill. Steinberger Gearless tuners would work perfectly.
Genius? Definitely not. I'm just a guy whose fixated on having a Lester construction guitar with a totally functional and stable non locking(with the exception of the tuners) whammy bar setup.Originally posted by muddy
MATTE!!!! yer a fekkin' GENE-yes!!!! i could kiss ya! i was thinkin' headstock tilt, when you just meant in a straight line. DOH!!! thanx!
Originally posted by decay-o-caster
Somehow that sounds so much better (and more realistic) than my fixation on a pair of Swedish stewardesses and a bottle of Wesson oil...
This is sort of true. The plate is still there but it is only as big as the it needs to be to anchor the trem to the body. Since the trem mounts directly to the top instead of on the stop tail posts the plate can be much smaller. The look is way better I think, like it is floating on the surface of the guitar.Originally posted by muddy
the oem is simply the stock stets minus the border plate, am i right?
Any trem is going to change the sound of the guitar but comparitively speaking this one does not affect it nearly as much as other trems I have used and played. The most obvious difference will be the lack of the trem block and springs (and the spring cavity). This eliminates the routing of a lot of wood between the neck and bridge that can have adverse affects on the tone (same reason longer neck tenons are desireable). It also makes use of smaller, more dense springs that do not resonate within the range of the guitar eliminating the faux reverb effect entirely. Althought the trem slides on top of the base plate (micro bearings take the load) there is a constant downward pressure that keeps these plates in contact. The result is excellent bridge to body contact that is consistent throughout the range of the trem. In my experience I would say that the tone is more similar to a hardtail than a standard trem unit. This is the reason I prefer it (plus I like the look of it).Originally posted by baald
David - any way you can comment onthe sound vis a vis a hardtail?
Quite true, straight string pull is a must (within 1-2 degrees max). Locking tuners are also a must. The headstock angle has not been as much of an issue with my guitars since I use a wider nut and curve the nut slots over the break angle so the strings do not bind there. On a couple retrofits I have done for Eric the thinner nuts have been a problem and this is definitely exacerbated by the headstock angle.Originally posted by Matte
I can't help but laugh at the baseless enthusiasm/faith that some people will place in something like a Stestbar. The crux of the issue rests squarely on the other side of the guitar. Without straight stringpull and a reduced headstock angle you're simply pissing up a rope.
I think Eric is working on a retrofit for wraparounds but he doesn't have one yet. --- The range is fenderish. You can easily slack the strings and raise the pitch by a whole tone or so depending on string guage/tension.Originally posted by atquinn
Do you know if the OEM stetsbar would be suitable for using with guitars that currently have wraparound tailpieces. --- Also, what's the range on the stetsbar like. Is it bigsby-ish, fenderish, or floydish?