Solve my trem problem pleeeeeese !!

impmann

Too 'soft' and as a result I get chirping when I dig into the guitar... plus having replaced a two post with a Callaham 6 screw (which took some doing/doweling etc) I can confirm that they suck tone! 

OilCityPickups

impmann said:

Too 'soft' and as a result I get chirping when I dig into the guitar... plus having replaced a two post with a Callaham 6 screw (which took some doing/doweling etc) I can confirm that they suck tone! 

I find the same thing ... both chirping and tone sucking.

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.

andypwudtone

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.

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.

Andyjr1515

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! 

andypwudtone

Andyjr1515 said:

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! 

some good points , (although forgive me as you can guess we will have to agree to disagree with the first section) . 

To clarify, a couple of things that have become misunderstood / lost in the debate. As per the diagram below ( this is the design of the Wudtone Constant Pivot plate not the original). The Wudtone CP plate does not need any gap, so please do not read into my comment, back off 1/8 turn max as needed for gap. All you need to do is back off enough so the screws are not exerting any pressure on the bridge plate, you can do that with zero gap and the plate will tilt freely. Apologies for any confusion that may have caused.  

Also your point "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."

I think your have misunderstood the diagram. Point A is the pivot point and the green arrows are two radius, the bottom of the plate is carefully machined as an arc between the two radius and this slides on the shim plate with a constant connection. This trem does not lift! The trem plate is held in position with no gap above the screws,  it remains held in exactly the same position so has a constant connection with the body of the guitar as it slides over the shim. There is a happy accident benefit too. The annoying chirping experienced with a two post trem is eliminated as the sliding has a slight dampening effect in use. Note there are no countersinks under the plate either. We use other ways to create the reliefs ( shown above as dotted lines ) to max the contact area of the bridge.   

I take your helpful point about promotion style although I don't think it makes for such a good debate. Hopefully we can get round to that when misunderstandings about the product are cleared up.  kind regards 

impmann

Excellent post there @Andyjr151, reflecting my thoughts pretty much exactly on this argument. Although I think Andy P needs to be careful of libel and slander rules, as Fender's lawyers may have things to say about their 60 year old design being "not fit for purpose". That's clearly not the case.

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.

Catthan

@northern_guit, maybe you could try these?

lub the nut slots with a sharp pencil tip

Have a look at these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy-F7iSIopA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm_VSjadCiU  (around 11 mins)

Hope there's smth useful for you there

andypwudtone

impmann said:

Excellent post there @Andyjr151, reflecting my thoughts pretty much exactly on this argument. Although I think Andy P needs to be careful of libel and slander rules, as Fender's lawyers may have things to say about their 60 year old design being "not fit for purpose". That's clearly not the case.

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.  

impmann

Er, Andy - it wasn't me that said it was not fit for purpose. I can't copy and paste on my phone but you said that in the last paragraph of your last mail on page 1.
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

andypwudtone

impmann said:

Er, Andy - it wasn't me that said it was not fit for purpose. I can't copy and paste on my phone but you said that in the last paragraph of your last mail on page 1.
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

wrong again, read it and you will see why "not fit for purpose" are your words, not mine. My statement qualifies the purpose, it is a completely different context, meaning.    

on a lighter note re bands, don' t come to a rehearsal sporting bridge saddles like those on icbm's video!

WezV

andypwudtone said:

In any case, if a guitarist wants to enjoy exploring a full envelope of a trem action, whilst being confident the guitar won't be put out of tune, the original plate, was, has always been and still is, simply unfit for that purpose. 

  

 reading the above, it seems you are saying here that a traditional trem is not fit for purpose as a trem that stays in tune and allows  up and down movement, which is quite a bit  like saying it isn't fit for purpose at all.

My view... many a fine tune played on an old fiddle.  Guitars do have many flaws, its good to understand them and have fixes for the ones that bother you, but generally those minor flaws are part of the sound that made us love guitars in the first place.  Great music is rarely technically perfect, Jimi may have sounded slightly more in tune with a wudtone bridge and had better tone with a wudtone finish, but would that actually have made the music any better??? 

Every trem released since the original fender design claims to be better than it, many are in some ways.  but that original design is still going strong for a reason.... it works well for a lot of people

andypwudtone

hi Wez,when folks are wrongly putting words in my mouth ( especially reference libel etc) it is important to be clear exactly what the context and meaning is. I'm saying what i'm saying and that isn't your interpretation "it isn't fit for purpose at all" either.

I agree it should be all about the music though. I don't think genius like Jimi Hendrix needed our stuff, but I would have loved to have heard what he could have done, sounded like with it ( I think he would have been inspired even if only a little) . Music, great playing and enjoyment of guitar ownership comes from having confidence, tools that are gonna help you perform, I see guitarists, searching for, wanting that. chrs 

OilCityPickups

andypwudtone said:

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. 

That's EXACTLY what I say on on this forum .. and on MR before...  very often ... 'If you are happy with your pickups, and they work for you, don't mess about changing them.

If it's a daft and meaningless statement, then it's one I make all the time.

WezV

andypwudtone said:

hi Wez,when folks are wrongly putting words in my mouth ( especially reference libel etc) it is important to be clear exactly what the context and meaning is. I'm saying what i'm saying and that isn't your interpretation "it isn't fit for purpose at all" either.

I don't think people are putting words in your mouth,I think they are trying to understand what you are saying.

Language is open to interpretation and people are telling you how your words are being interpreted.   If its not what you actually meant, and if it bothers you, then perhaps you need to be clearer about what you do mean. I hope no-one is expecting works of literary genius in every post, but consider not blaming others if your words are not coming across as clear as you hoped.

andypwudtone

WezV said:

andypwudtone said:

hi Wez,when folks are wrongly putting words in my mouth ( especially reference libel etc) it is important to be clear exactly what the context and meaning is. I'm saying what i'm saying and that isn't your interpretation "it isn't fit for purpose at all" either.

I don't think people are putting words in your mouth,I think they are trying to understand what you are saying.

Language is open to interpretation and people are telling you how your words are being interpreted.   If its not what you actually meant, and if it bothers you, then perhaps you need to be clearer about what you do mean. I hope no-one is expecting works of literary genius in every post, but consider not blaming others if your words are not coming across as clear as you hoped.

Hi Wez, 

Too late mate , its already been done. Here is the deal from my plain speaking yorkshire up bringing perspective. When someone posts, diagrams, text etc, it is quite reasonable to ask for clarification about anything that isn't clear. Not doing so, then interpreting it to mean something different and then stating the person has used different words to express that different meaning just isn't acceptable. It is not about inward or outward blame it is about reasonable rules of engagement in a democracy. 

Meanwhile @Andyjr1515  , you have made the following statements about our product ‘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."

Firstly, It is unclear to me which drawing you are referring to.

Please can you confirm exactly which drawing you are referring to in the statement above?

may be easiest to right click copy image url and paste in reply.

many thanks in advance. 

Andyjr1515

I'm a bit bemused how comments like '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.' and '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' can cause such a furore but, to make public my private reply to Andy P's message:

Andy P has fully explained in the above thread the answer to my query relating to the above drawing.  My assumption was that the last thing you would want on a trem is metal-to-metal sliding contact.  As such, my assumption was that, EITHER the trem plate 'C' was separated by a very small gap from the bottom plate 'D', in which case there would not be a direct contact between the two and therefore no tone difference OR that the drawing was not quite correct and the arc (coloured orange) actually rolled, not slid, on the bottom plate 'D' (those who studied how ball bearings are designed will be familiar with these concepts).  Andy's answer fully clarifies that it does indeed slide (as per the drawing...follow the projected movement of the orange section of the arc as the trem pivots upwards from point 'A'.

I remain intrigued why this doesn't create friction that would impede the trem but I am assured it doesn't.  Bearing in mind I only have a drawing to look at, then that's that.

Now this really IS the last post I'm doing on this.  Thanks all  

andypwudtone

Andyjr1515 said:

I'm a bit bemused 

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 ?    

impmann

Andy, I don't mean any harm either. I'm just struggling to understand your claims like all of us, as I am genuinely interested.
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.