My experimental data on how different vibratos change the sound - Duesenberg vs Mastery

parker_knoll

I asked a local luthier and this forum how installing a Jazzmaster style vibrato unit might change the sound on my fixed bridge 2001 Guild M65 Custom Shop. It's a nice and hard to find guitar that cost a fair bit so I didn't want to ruin it. No one could really give me a clear answer so I decided to investigate for myself.

I decided to set up an experiment, laid out below. Please excuse bad mobile phone pics snapped while I went along. I did this as a fun NYE holiday project over a fair few glasses of wine (except for the routing, don't worry). It was a fun experiment, I wasn't paying attention to neatness or looking after the poor sacrificial guitar as I went.

Scroll to the bottom for the results.

First up, here's the Guild M65 on somebody's else's carpet



THE EQUIPMENT:

1 x Duesenberg Vibrola Short
1 x Mastery OMV-P Vibrato
1 x Dearmond M55 sacrificial guitar for UK£70, with the same bridge arrangement as my M65.
3 x the cheapest string sets I could find, GHS 10-38 - a strange gauge a bit light in the bass but the point here was comparison.

Here's the sacrificial guitar. The stock pickup is horrible, the tuners are horrible, and it's put together wonky.



Enjoy the way the bridge and/or neck is misaligned and the way it came strung from the previous owner:




THE PROCESS

First up, I tested it with a new set of the GHS in the original set up.

Then I installed the Duesenberg. Super easy, took about 10 minutes and four holes.





Next up I installed the Mastery. Getting it to work properly on a not-straight guitar proved an interesting challenge. Neither the strap pin, nor the bridge, nor the neck was centred so there was no reliable centre point to work with. In the end I decided to centre it on the neck, which required installing it slightly skewwhiff. However, once on, it works well.

I did the routing with a bit attached to a mini drill and merrily damaged the top of the guitar in the process, for which I apologise. However, I was only interested in getting to the end point as quickly as possible.

I chose to install it closer than on a Jazzmaster as I was keen to get a break angle similar to what's currently on the guitar, although this is a bit shallower.



THE RESULTS

So I recorded the guitar after each step directly into Logic using the onboard Guitar Amp Pro set to US Combo 40 and UK 2x12 closed.

I just played each string open, then strummed the same chord pattern, and then tested the range of the trems when installed.

Audio Samples

Fixed bridge
Duesenberg Vibrola
Mastery Vibrato

EQ overlay

I used a spectrum analyser plug in to view the EQ response of each recording and average them. Here they are overlaid.

PURPLE = MASTERY
ORANGE = DUESENBERG
GREEN = FIXED



So how do the different units change the sound?

NOT MUCH!

Arguably there's a small loss of bass with the Mastery but it's pretty insignificant. There's also a resonant peak around 120Hz with the Duesenberg, but again nothing huge. What do your ears tell you rather than your eyes?

Sustain

Sustain wise there's not really anything in it. Perhaps the Duesenberg has a slight edge but it's not dramatic.

General

Aside from the sound, both vibrato units work very well. The Duesenberg has a slightly softer spring than a Bigsby B5 but it's great to have the adjustable arm, both for height and length. Range is pretty similar to a Bigsby.

The Mastery has a far greater range, but I'll have to get used to how high the arm is off the body. I guess it could be bent. It would look better if I spent the extra bucks for a metal tip.

Now for what to do with the M65 I'm not sure. I'll muse on it.

ICBM

Personally I would fit the Duesenberg - it sounds slightly better, and most importantly looks *far* better. It fits the style of the guitar perfectly - actually even better than a Bigsby - whereas the Mastery one really doesn't... at all.

Fit a cheap Jazzmaster trem on the M55 and sell it and the Mastery separately - you'll get more back like that probably.

JohnS37

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

parker_knoll

ICBM said:

Personally I would fit the Duesenberg - it sounds slightly better, and most importantly looks *far* better. It fits the style of the guitar perfectly - actually even better than a Bigsby - whereas the Mastery one really doesn't... at all.

Fit a cheap Jazzmaster trem on the M55 and sell it and the Mastery separately - you'll get more back like that probably.

Yes, I was thinking it's a shame I scratched up the top. Could easily sell it on with a Squier trem installed 

parker_knoll

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

ICBM

... but they may benefit from a rocker bridge .

Actually they might be better with one or the other, it really depends on how smoothly the strings can move over the bridge saddles - which depends to a large extent on the break angle, so setting the vibrato further back than a typical Bigsby will help.

parker_knoll said:

Yes, I was thinking it's a shame I scratched up the top. Could easily sell it on with a Squier trem installed 

Given the extra screw holes and the wonky neck it probably doesn't matter about a few scratches...

impmann

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

Can you elaborate on why not?

Andyjr1515

To me - first listen anyway - the Mastery has a distinct 'phaser' pitch shift going on.  Those single notes beat with a slow change in pitch which the other two recordings don't.

parker_knoll

impmann said:

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

Can you elaborate on why not?

Actually it depends on the bridge. I put an expensive ABM roller on a guitar with a lot of high end and it took most of it away - stuff in the 5k to 8k bracket, which normal folks call sparkle or shimmer or something like that. 

I'm going to do a bridge experiment shortly and have another roller to try.

parker_knoll

Andyjr1515 said:

To me - first listen anyway - the Mastery has a distinct 'phaser' pitch shift going on.  Those single notes beat with a slow change in pitch which the other two recordings don't.

is that a good or bad thing?

Seziertisch

Andyjr1515 said:

To me - first listen anyway - the Mastery has a distinct 'phaser' pitch shift going on.  Those single notes beat with a slow change in pitch which the other two recordings don't.

That’s the overtones from the extra string length behind the bridge with the Mastery

Seziertisch

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

I’d go for domed thumbwheels with the stock tuneomatic. Similarly benefits to tuning as with a roller bridge.

Also, the Duesenberg looks better than the Mastery, though they feel quite different from one another.

parker_knoll

Seziertisch said:

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

I’d go for domed thumbwheels with the stock tuneomatic. Similarly benefits to tuning as with a roller bridge.

Also, the Duesenberg looks better than the Mastery, though they feel quite different from one another.

yes, i had forgotten about domed thumbwheels, thanks. 

I'm not sure I agree about the looks of the Duesenberg, but it's all still under consideration

Seziertisch

parker_knoll said:

Seziertisch said:

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

I’d go for domed thumbwheels with the stock tuneomatic. Similarly benefits to tuning as with a roller bridge.

Also, the Duesenberg looks better than the Mastery, though they feel quite different from one another.

yes, i had forgotten about domed thumbwheels, thanks. 

I'm not sure I agree about the looks of the Duesenberg, but it's all still under consideration

Personally, in terms of feel, I’d go for the Mastery over the Duesenberg.

parker_knoll

parker_knoll said:

impmann said:

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

Can you elaborate on why not?

Actually it depends on the bridge. I put an expensive ABM roller on a guitar with a lot of high end and it took most of it away - stuff in the 5k to 8k bracket, which normal folks call sparkle or shimmer or something like that. 

I'm going to do a bridge experiment shortly and have another roller to try.

I can update to say a cheap Chinese roller and a Schaller did not suck treble the way then ABM did. Basically it means they are not resonant, at least not any more than a regular Schaller tune-o-matic which I tested them against. 

Seziertisch

parker_knoll said:

parker_knoll said:

impmann said:

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

Can you elaborate on why not?

Actually it depends on the bridge. I put an expensive ABM roller on a guitar with a lot of high end and it took most of it away - stuff in the 5k to 8k bracket, which normal folks call sparkle or shimmer or something like that. 

I'm going to do a bridge experiment shortly and have another roller to try.

I can update to say a cheap Chinese roller and a Schaller did not suck treble the way then ABM did. Basically it means they are not resonant, at least not any more than a regular Schaller tune-o-matic which I tested them against. 

Was the ABM bridge one of their bell brass ones? 

I bought a regular ABM brass Tuneomatic second hand for my Gretsch and I thought it very much improved the sound of that guitar, making it warmer and “more musical”. The guy who sold it had had it installed on a 335 and found that it made things muddy.

The path to finding the right “recipe” for any given guitar is not always straightforward. I’m sure an aluminium bridge from ABM would give very different results 

Funkfingers

parker_knoll said:

Has @HarrySeven seen this? 

HarrySeven

Funkfingers said:

parker_knoll said:

Has @HarrySeven seen this? 

He has now!!!  

parker_knoll

Seziertisch said:

parker_knoll said:

parker_knoll said:

impmann said:

parker_knoll said:

JohnS37 said:

might not both these installations benefit from a roller bridge?

Definitely not

Can you elaborate on why not?

Actually it depends on the bridge. I put an expensive ABM roller on a guitar with a lot of high end and it took most of it away - stuff in the 5k to 8k bracket, which normal folks call sparkle or shimmer or something like that. 

I'm going to do a bridge experiment shortly and have another roller to try.

I can update to say a cheap Chinese roller and a Schaller did not suck treble the way then ABM did. Basically it means they are not resonant, at least not any more than a regular Schaller tune-o-matic which I tested them against. 

Was the ABM bridge one of their bell brass ones? 

I bought a regular ABM brass Tuneomatic second hand for my Gretsch and I thought it very much improved the sound of that guitar, making it warmer and “more musical”. The guy who sold it had had it installed on a 335 and found that it made things muddy.

The path to finding the right “recipe” for any given guitar is not always straightforward. I’m sure an aluminium bridge from ABM would give very different results 

I suspect "warmer" and "suck treble" are the same thing . It depends what you want. In this case I liked the bright sound of the guitar and didn't want to change it.