lacquer under the bridge?

[Bluesdude]

I was reading something that on a strat, grinding the paint off the area where the trem block and baseplate meet will result in more resonance. Would it be a good idea to take the bridge off a tele, and take off all the finish on that area, allowing more contact with the wood?

 

[maestrovert]

you're kidding , right ?

i've read that Eric Johnson prefers his Strats that way...but i for one don't get it....i think i'd rather have the wood protected....bare wood is/can be hydroscopic...

 

[Bluesdude]

well, it'd have the big metal tele bridge on top of it, so it'd be protected. Im just wondering if it would transfer vibrations any better...

 

[maestrovert]

?

it might be "covered by the bridge plate, but would not be protected....the moisture in the air(humidity) would still be absorbed by the wood....it's hydroscopic....
personally, i'd never think of doing it....BUT as they say : YMMV
let us know how it comes out if you decide to go ahead with it

 

[Sunburst Island]

I was reading something that on a strat, grinding the paint off the area where the trem block and baseplate meet will result in more resonance. Would it be a good idea to take the bridge off a tele, and take off all the finish on that area, allowing more contact with the wood?

I wouldn't attempt it. There are so many instances where some people believe that bare wood enhances something or another. In many cases that may be true. But look back at it...

That's the way vintage strats were originally setup. No paint between the two surface areas (block and plate). In the instances where I've played guitars either way, yes, there was more resonance with the block with no paint a top it. But that is steel against steel, and the strings touch both the block and the plate, then the saddles.

On the tele your strings make contact with the ferrules, the bridge plate and the saddles. As long as the bridge plate is snug and flat, and there is a good transfer of pressure from the strings against the saddles to the plate that's all you need to maximize the guitar's resonance. Alot of the potential resonance also comes from the body. If it's not that good to begin with there's not much to help it either way. I'd imagine that a good set of saddles will enhance your tone, resonance, clarity, etc... before removing paint underneath the bridge might. It's a clever idea but just doesn't add up to the inital question. The strat's bridge isn't coming in contact with bare wood. You see?

The idea of the newer tele bridge plates where the front is secured by two extra smaller screws is to help the plate lay flat and even for better resonance with the body. I haven't used these but a lot of players swear by them. I just recently put on a pair of stainless steel saddles (made by Dan Scicchitano) on my '50s Classic Tele. It was already a good guitar but, WHOA... talk about resonance. It made it even much more better than it was already. That just proves aside from materials and the maker's technique, that the saddles transfer so much of the strings vibrations. After that addition that guitar doesn't need anything ever again. It sings.

Whatever you do have fun and good luck with it.

 

[Rhomco]

None Lacquer Impared Content!

And you could start a whole new trend by removing any overspray and buffing compound from under the string ferruls too! Now the tuners........... I'm all over it!
This response is rated tounge in cheek.

 

[TeleTubby]

Along the same lines and for a Tele at least, one thing I always do (not on vintage pieces, though) is to run the bottom of the bridge over some sand paper to make it flat and allow the maximum amount of wood/bridge vibration transfer. I can hear the difference, but if your bridge already lays perfectly flat against the body, you would notice no change/improvement.

 

[jam]

My opinion, worth exactly what you're paying for it.

I was reading something that on a strat, grinding the paint off the area where the trem block and baseplate meet will result in more resonance.

An absolute crock. The only way I can figure this idea ever came into being is from acoustic construction, wherein better makers don't finish the top under the bridge. I always assumed that was for better glue adhesion. Certainly if there was some kind of finish damping effect from bridge to body, stringed instrument makers--by which I mean violin, viola, cello, and bass--would have been aware of it.

Some of these 'resonance enhancing' ideas that people bring to bear on assembly-line built bolt-on electric guitars are simply preposterous.

JAM

 

[Steve Perry]

i've read that Eric Johnson prefers his Strats that way...

Yeah... and Eric Johnson is also the guy who thinks the red rubber band that holds one of his pedals together sounds better than the blue one

Steve Perry

 

[Teletwang]

i've read that Eric Johnson prefers his Strats that way...

Yeah... and Eric Johnson is also the guy who thinks the red rubber band that holds one of his pedals together sounds better than the blue one

Steve Perry

funny stuff.....
(link removed)

 

[0le FUZZY]

simply preposterous.

<li>Well said Jam !

0.F.

 

[Bluesdude]

Well.....I thought it mighta been a cool idea...

 

[lobotomyactivist]

Well.....I thought it mighta been a cool idea...

I think it's just a sort thing that's fussing for the sake of fussing. It's like claiming deleting a single 5 KB text document will make your computer run faster. yeah, maybe minutely, but will you notice?