Glendale chimemaster - any users?

[TheBear]

I am having issues with the strings sliding around on the saddle of my Chimemaster. I've had to make the B/E saddle completely level and this is not ideal for my neck radius. Any ideas? Do people notch brass saddles?

Thanks

[Neer]

I have not had that issue. Have you tried contacting Glen? Is it possible that your saddles are too low?

[TheBear]

I'll send him an email, he has always been really easy to get in touch with and helpful. I just thought that this would be a pretty common problem since so many tele players use brass saddles (these are actually my first!).

The B string is VERY stretchy on this guitar. I am using staggered tuners and no string trees. I wonder if that could be the problem.

[boris bubbanov]

Bear, you might try tensioning up the E string first, in such a way the saddle locks up against the middle saddle, and then bring the tension up slowly on the B string.

What guage are you using? I've got 10-46s and the increased tension over 9s keeps everything from shifting around. Play the saddles in, a let the string take a set on that saddle.

I've got a 10-16 conical radius on mine, and so there's no radical tilt. A 10-16 radius basically means a 20 inch radius at the bridge. I guess that is pretty flat.
No troubles or issues here.

[TheBear]

Originally Posted by boris bubbanov

Bear, you might try tensioning up the E string first, in such a way the saddle locks up against the middle saddle, and then bring the tension up slowly on the B string.

What guage are you using? I've got 10-46s and the increased tension over 9s keeps everything from shifting around. Play the saddles in, a let the string take a set on that saddle.

I've got a 10-16 conical radius on mine, and so there's no radical tilt. A 10-16 radius basically means a 20 inch radius at the bridge. I guess that is pretty flat.
No troubles or issues here.

It is a 9.5-12" neck. I am kind of confused about how you came up with 20" radius. I guess I would need 14-16" then?

Dale recommended leaving the saddle flat for a couple of weeks until the strings set and then try adjusting it.

[boris bubbanov]

Originally Posted by TheBear

It is a 9.5-12" neck. I am kind of confused about how you came up with 20" radius. I guess I would need 14-16" then?

Dale recommended leaving the saddle flat for a couple of weeks until the strings set and then try adjusting it.

Pleased to hear that word from Dale. He's very good at this stuff, and he's a serious player and that really does make a difference.

What I mean about the radius on conical or "compound" radius necks is, the radius keeps right on flattening as you continue past the last fret, over the pickups, and on to the break points at the saddle. A 10-16 I would estimate at 19-20 at the bridge. On a 9-12 conical radius the bridge radius would be around 14-15 inches, at the saddles. That's not flat, but it is also a very long way from, say, a continuous 7.25 inch radius from nut to bridge. So let that string take a set, then later fine tune the angle to restore that 14 inch radius arc with the other saddles.

[TheBear]

Originally Posted by boris bubbanov

Pleased to hear that word from Dale. He's very good at this stuff, and he's a serious player and that really does make a difference.

What I mean about the radius on conical or "compound" radius necks is, the radius keeps right on flattening as you continue past the last fret, over the pickups, and on to the break points at the saddle. A 10-16 I would estimate at 19-20 at the bridge. On a 9-12 conical radius the bridge radius would be around 14-15 inches, at the saddles. That's not flat, but it is also a very long way from, say, a continuous 7.25 inch radius from nut to bridge. So let that string take a set, then later fine tune the angle to restore that 14 inch radius arc with the other saddles.

Thats some good info. I am still trying to get the truss rod and tilt dialed in so I guess I will leave it be a while until the strings set and then give it a go.

[boris bubbanov]

The brass is soft enough, I'm sure the strings will settle down. You have the advantage of the 1/4 barrels from Dale. This is NOT a Chimemaster, more of a Chimebasser but with 10-46s, the strings stay put even with the 5/16ths compensated saddles:





BTW on a MIM Standard, narrow screw mount array, you gotta make your own. the Chimemaster needs the vintage mount screw spacing.

[boris bubbanov]

Well, I finally got round to putting one of these two Chimemaster "II" (you know, the ones with the smaller block and heavy duty arm arrangement). I put it on this used MSN6 Jimmie Vaughan I found in August, which has been languishing in Florida due to the hurricanes this year.

4 springs in place of 3, Callaham hardened trem mount screws; going for that "almost decked" effect. The sound of the guitar is bolder, and the trem bar system is really really nice. Really whammies nice. Certainly plays nice and smooth enough.

I might put the twin to this Chimemaster "II" on the Highway One in place of the first generation Chimemaster on there and see what happens. I'm not sure what's going on here, it is almost as though the limitations of the stock MIM "Tex-Mex" pickups have been revealed or maybe it isn't such a good match, or maybe just dumb EQ choices on the amp. Bad strings? I'll keep digging, but preliminarily I'll say for now I might like the first generation Chimemaster with the 11 ounce brass block better.

[boris bubbanov]

I'm liking it more, the tone, the general playability. I am concerned the plate is binding a fraction. I'll measure all 3 chimemasters and make sure they match dead, then maybe try one of these newer versions on the Highway One again and see if I still sense any slight binding. Another idea would be to reinstall the original AV57/62 bridge and make sure whether the binding effect is following this one Jimmie or is it a bridgeplate:

[Mitch Roberts]

Just a question for everyone: after all the discussions in the past over what makes the best trem block (including some heated debates between Callaham and Mike Eldridge of Fender), why would this new system use a brass block (along with the durability issues that required a sort of clunky fix, IMHO) ? Surely Glendale could have provided a cold-rolled steel block with enough mass to provide the sought after sustain. Could it be that it would have driven the price up even further? Is it supposed to sound better? More Tele-like? I am really perplexed by this aspect of the design.

Talk amongst yourselves...

[boris bubbanov]

Any discussion between Messrs. Eldred and Callaham pertained to types of steel in steel blocks. I think the 1018 steel Bill uses is pretty pricey to go in every Fender Strat and frankly the owners of AV62s would get upset if they thought their not inexpensive model had a second rate block in it - such are the vagaries of a big enterprise like FMIC. Mike can't win discussing the subject and Bill can't lose while the subject is front and center.

But steel is not the "absolute" best thing if the sound you are after is a different one - that high quality low (or no) lead brass or zinc alloys might offer. High quality alloys of different types are available in, for example, bridge plates and saddles at www.taipantone.com. Each material imparts a different tonal nature to the guitar. I think these brass blocks (especially the 1st generation 11 ounce version) have a wonderful, acoustic sound I don't recall hearing before on a Strat ( brass had its heyday and suffered terribly later because of some of the goofy designs associated with brass [ Floyds for one ]). And the zinc block in one of my G + L Comanches pretty much holds its own against its twin Comanche with the Callaham steel block - two different but excellent sounds.

So the Fender/Callaham debate was about making the best possible (and accurate) steel block but it doesn't mean using another type of material is bonkers - it just means different horses for different courses.

[Mitch Roberts]

Yeah, Boris, I hear what you're saying, but I still think steel is the definitive material. if nothing else, it is the most pervasive and is responsible for what most people consider the definitive Strat tone. Nothing wrong with brass, per se, other than it apparently requires some form of apparatus to attach the trem arm. I personally do not like that rather clunky steel insert, as it looks like it makes the arm ride a bit high in the air - and thus in the way. All a matter of personal taste.

[boris bubbanov]

Originally Posted by Mitch Roberts

Yeah, Boris, I hear what you're saying, but I still think steel is the definitive material. if nothing else, it is the most pervasive and is responsible for what most people consider the definitive Strat tone. Nothing wrong with brass, per se, other than it apparently requires some form of apparatus to attach the trem arm. I personally do not like that rather clunky steel insert, as it looks like it makes the arm ride a bit high in the air - and thus in the way. All a matter of personal taste.

I've got the Chimemaster I (I call it I and II, Dale doesn't) on a Highway One and that earlier version has the big brass block and that problematic trem-arm-into-brass-block issue long term, so I do my whammying on this one.

[boris bubbanov]

Just wanted to pass word along, I noticed from the website that the Chimemaster in both versions is back in stock and available for purchase.

I sure like mine!

[ZTinman]

So, how do these things sound on a Tele?