What's More Crucial For The Fender(tele) Sound?!

[GregP]

The one I was thinking of still maintains a straight "look". The staggering is created by having the saddle shaped not just as a cylinder, but having raised sort of 'triangular' surfaces that create the stagger. So you don't have to sacrifice that vintage look. I'll see if I can dig up a link somewhere.

[edit: wasn't a forum, it was on eBay--> Click me! ]

But now that I actually found a link and am looking at them, the ones Drak mentioned DO maintain more of the classic look after all. I like these GuitarFetish ones, but they're not exactly traditional-looking, are they?

Greg

[Mickguard]

Graphtech makes string savers that give you the compensation too. I have a set-- the B-string keeps breaking on me!

I'm with the 'if you want a tele, get a tele' school. But I love P90s --I'd keep the stock tele bridge, and put the P90 at the neck, since the tele neck pickup is useless.

[marksound]

the tele neck pickup is useless.

Hold thy tongue, heathen, lest the gods of twang smite thee.

[Firefox2551]

I would say the scale length has nothing to do with it. Ever heard a Baritone tele? Sure sounds like a tele still to me.

Pickups are probably close to 50% of the tele's sound, the bridge plate has alot to do with it also, then the Neck, and the Alder or Swamp ash bodies also have their respective influence on the sound.

About the intonation, what if you had a bunch of little triangular saddles? That sit staggered, on this way ^ and then one this way v so it would look like this from the front of the saddle, ^v^v^v that way you could squish them all in there, the angles would not obviously be perfect triangles because a string wouldn't sit on top of that, mabye more like wedges.

[mikhailgtrski]

I would say the scale length has nothing to do with it. Ever heard a Baritone tele? Sure sounds like a tele still to me.

The longer scale of a baritone likely maintains the twangy tele overtone series. If you went the other direction and built a shorter (Gibson) scale tele you'd probably lose some of the twang.

You know, there's some variation even among Telecasters. I recently got to play a nearly mint blonde '59, and it sounded a whole lot twangier than my friend's new-ish American Standard. The treble of that old bridge p/u would, as another friend likes to put it, "shatter your eyeballs".

If I'm not mistaken, Fender moved the bridge p/u slightly closer to the neck on the later models.

[TheCross]

so why should a p90.... gibsons take on a SC... on a tele bridge plate not sound similar(SIMILAR) to a 'standard' tele.... even dual buckered Teles do have still some tele tone, don't they?!

[marksound]

The humbuckers on the Tele FMT are "voiced" for a Fender sound. Others probably won't quite cut it.

[SwedishLuthier]

Why does Tele pickups sound like Tele pickups, and why cant P90 in a Tele bridge sound like a Tele?

The original Tele pickup has a coil wound around six magnetic rods. Under the rods there were (on most “vintage” reissues still are) a copper plated shielding steel plate. This was originally meant to shield of hum (EMC disturbances) together with the steel cover that most players used as an ashtray. This steel plate actually directs the magnetic field up towards the strings. A P90 have steel screws for poles and two bar magnets under the coil. This will form an even more complex magnetic field around the strings, and this again affects the sound. The same thing goes for the steel stamped bridge. The narrow hole in the plate for the pickup filters out (shield) some of the magnetic field. The form of the magnetic field is one of the most crucial parts of how a pickup will sound. This is why a brass bridge plate will take away a lot of the Tele sound. Then add the fact that a P90 is mostly wound to around 10 Kohms compared to around 7 for a Tele and you have most of the secret of the Tele pickup.

Ok, but why doesn’t a Tele pickup without a steel shielding plate sound like a Strat? The Strat pickup is tall and narrow and therefore “senses” a shorter part of the string. Compare that to a Tele and you will see that the Tele is short and squat. This makes this pickup sense a slightly longer part of the string and icing up more overtones along the string. A P90 are even broader and a HB… you get the picture.

So if you want the reasons why a Tele pickup are the only pickup that will sound like a Tele the factors are (most important first):

-Magnetic rod pole pieces

-Steel shielding plate under the magnetic poles

-Wider, shorter coil

-Steel bridge plate

An interesting example in how the different factors influence the sound: I make a T-90 pickup which means that it has the size of a Tele coil, steel screws for poles, two bar magnets under the coil and the same amount of windings as a P-90 Places in a steel Tele bridge is sound almost like a Tele but with a little more beef. Pass the salt please

[Hoser Rob]

A Tele with humbuckers, even a set neck one, still sounds like a Tele.

A lot of it is the way the strings are mounted. A hardtail strat sounds rather tele like to me.

And, of course, the scale length. Sonically and feel wise that's the main difference between a Fender and a Gibson. That's according to Roger Sadowsky BTW. You'll never get that poppy sound without it. Also the fact that there's no back angle on the headstock.

A real swamp ash body and one piece maple neck/fretboard with skunk stripe helps too.

[SwedishLuthier]

Sorry Rob, but I have to disagree. IMHO a Tele with HBs, P-90 or whatever sound quite far from a real Tele

As mentioned before I make these T-90 pickups. I have a set mounted in a swamp ash bodied, maple necked Tele with a stamped steel, string-through-body bridge and 25.5” scale. It’s got all of the factors that you have mentioned except for the pickups. And it still doesn’t sound like a Tele. Pretty close but still no cigar.

I’m sorry to say this, but head angle, skunk stripe, one-piece neck compared to a glued on maple fret board and stuff like that is part of the “holy grail of tone” mumbo jumbo that always has surrounded guitar building. These factors affect maybe a few percentage of the sound. Together! Maple neck yes. Body wood yes. But come on. Skunk stripe or not…

It still is the combination of the Tele pickup with a short squat coil, magnetic rods and steel shielding plate in a steel bridge that makes up most of the Tele sound.

[marksound]

It still is the combination of the Tele pickup with a short squat coil, magnetic rods and steel shielding plate in a steel bridge that makes up most of the Tele sound.

And a good hat.

[GregP]

A great deal of it is phsychosematic. You pick up a tele-looking guitar, and chances are you'll already be approaching it the way you'd approach a tele. Teles with a Jackson headstock and Floyd don't really say "Tele" despite the body silhouette, so you still don't approach them as a tele. I think it's a far more important factor than people realize.

Greg

[Drak]

I bet most of this commentary is all pure conjecture and heresay.

If we limited the posters to people who actually have had various Telecasters and can speak from experience (which is really the only posts that should count here), the post count would plummet like a rock.

That's why I never take these conversations too seriously. It's like all the chambered threads I read.

Fun to shoot the bull about it, but most people posting have no real information to add to the discussion, it's all 'head talk', which is pure conjecture and 100% meaningless.

You want an answer?

Go ask this question over at the TDPRI, where a LOT of those guys have owned, played, and gigged with several different Telecasters. They'll put you straight pretty quick as to what's a Tele and what's not, and even they will vary from one person to the next where the limit is set, but at least they have owned and used several different models and speak from comparative experience, which is useful information.

[SwedishLuthier]

I bet most of this commentary is all pure conjecture and heresay.

Built 2, wound a couple of Tele pickups, repaired a couple of Teles, had a dozen or so in my workshop for miscellaneous set up jobs, so I think that I can stay in this thread

[Mickguard]

If we limited the posters to people who actually have had various Telecasters and can speak from experience (which is really the only posts that should count here), the post count would plummet like a rock.

Nonsense.

I mean, sheer and utter nonsense.

Every person here has HEARD telecasters, we've all seen people play telecasters, through many different types of amps and in many different settings.

And I'm sure a lot of people here are like me, they've read tons about telecasters (and other guitars) and what other people have to say about telecasters, and all of this is regardless of how many telecasters any of have actually played.

It's called a sharing of knowledge, information and experience, and especially, opinion. Which is what the Cross was asking for. Getting back to your favority football analogy, you don't have to play the game in order to hang out around the water cooler Monday morning.

In fact, it doesn't really matter if you've EVER played a telecaster --unless you want to speak about the differences in necks and fret heights, I suppose.

So I'm going to stick with my bridge plate theory and agree with Swedish Luthier's bridge pickup idea too. And wish the Cross good luck with his build, of course!

Twang!

[Drak]

In fact, it doesn't really matter if you've EVER played a telecaster --unless you want to speak about the differences in necks and fret heights, I suppose.

Nonsense.

I mean, sheer and utter nonsense.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Mickguard]

That's the best you can do?

[Gemm012]

To help make a Tele three barrel bridge more intonate-able, would it work to have the three barrels, but then, instead of having one screw for each in the middle, two screws at the edges so you could adjust the angle of the barrel? I think that's a pretty slick idea if you could work around having the strings hit the screws. Any of you guys are welcome to try it out... for a small royalty fee of course. Oh sweet capitalism and greed Where would America be without you?

Galen.

[tirapop]

Galen, that sounds worke-able. But, there are already adjustable saddles for intonating a 3 barrel bridge. Stewmac sells one from Wilkinson.

[GregP]

Drak, that's illogical, incorrect, and more than a bit condescending. But 'salright... it takes all types on these boards, and I'm happy to disagree with you here and to agree whole-heartedly with Mick. It's practically self-evident that different guitars almost 'beg' to be played in certain ways, which was my point.

The fact that my tele-style guitar has a Little '59 in the bridge doesn't stop me from snapping the strings and getting twang for days. But when I pick up my p90-equipped guitar, I don't really play it that way. I might be in the minority, but I strongly (VERY strongly) suspect that most people (even you, I think, though I certainly can't speak for you) would agree that different guitars demand different approaches, and a telecaster-style guitar, even with a non-magnetic bridge and a bright humbucker or a P90, will sound like a Telecaster when approached as such.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss people's opinions based on whether they've played a host of teles or not. Valid opinions can be formed from a variety of sources, and "having played many different telecasters" is definitely one of the (if not THE) most important ones, but that doesn't make it the only one.

Now, this is more of a question (not necessarily rhetorical either, since I actually DON'T know the answer), but weren't the G&L ASAT special pickups a lot closer in sound and engineering to a P90 than to a Tele-style single-coil? On a related point, Will Ray and others definitely sound like they're playing a "telecaster," even without the benefit of a stamped steel bridge.

Greg

[Mickguard]

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss people's opinions based on whether they've played a host of teles or not. Valid opinions can be formed from a variety of sources, and "having played many different telecasters" is definitely one of the (if not THE) most important ones, but that doesn't make it the only one.

so what's more important for the crisp sound? the bolt-on construction or the string tension/ scale length?

This is The Cross's question. He's not asking what makes a telecaster FEEL like the way it does. He's not asking what makes it LOOK like a telecaster. He's asking about the sound--what makes it SOUND like a telecaster.

And I say again, having played a telecaster is NOT essential for discussing the sound of telecaster. Sure, it helps, especially if you've had a chance to play different types of telecasters through different types of amps. But it's probably more helpful if you've listened to a lot of other guitarists playing telecasters, and especially modified and pseudo-telecasters.

If you ask me what a telecaster FEELS like (and according to Drak's criteria, I presume I have permission to speak--although when did this forum turned into an elitist paradise for wanabe knowitalls?)--other than what the neck feels like, which varies from guitar to guitar, and according to where it was made, what period, etc.--I'd say it feels a lot like a plank of wood slapping against my legs and bumping into my hip. With little sharp pieces of metal poking in the butt of the palm of my hand, a thin piece of plastic beneath my pinky, and a damn pickup selector that keeps getting in my way.

I kind of like that feeling (other than the selector part), and I definitely agree with Greg, it changes the way you play the guitar, the whole attack. It's much different from the wraparound on my Gibson, which is also different from the wraparound on my 350 (because of the string height). It's similar to my strat, but the strat lacks the coolness factor when playing it -- as soon as I start playing a telecaster, I start staggering around like Keef.

If you ask me what a telecaster needs in order to LOOK like a telecaster, that's easy-- it needs, in descending order of important (and again, according to my opinion), the control plate, the bridge plate, the pickguard and a metal-covered pickup at the neck. Doesn't even need the headstock. And definitely, it needs to stick to a minimalist design, none of that gaudy flamed/quilted maple gook. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no roomful of telecaster 'experts' can change that simple fact.

But if you ask me what I think (permission to speak sir!) makes the telecaster sound --well, I look for the differences between the telecaster and every other guitar. Which leads me back to the bridge plate and the bridge pickup.

Anyway, here's a great clip of The Black Keys : Yes, you too can become a telecaster expert!

[TheCross]

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss people's opinions based on whether they've played a host of teles or not. Valid opinions can be formed from a variety of sources, and "having played many different telecasters" is definitely one of the (if not THE) most important ones, but that doesn't make it the only one.

so what's more important for the crisp sound? the bolt-on construction or the string tension/ scale length?

This is The Cross's question. He's not asking what makes a telecaster FEEL like the way it does. He's not asking what makes it LOOK like a telecaster. He's asking about the sound--what makes it SOUND like a telecaster.

And I say again, having played a telecaster is NOT essential for discussing the sound of telecaster. Sure, it helps, especially if you've had a chance to play different types of telecasters through different types of amps. But it's probably more helpful if you've listened to a lot of other guitarists playing telecasters, and especially modified and pseudo-telecasters.

If you ask me what a telecaster FEELS like (and according to Drak's criteria, I presume I have permission to speak--although when did this forum turned into an elitist paradise for wanabe knowitalls?)--other than what the neck feels like, which varies from guitar to guitar, and according to where it was made, what period, etc.--I'd say it feels a lot like a plank of wood slapping against my legs and bumping into my hip. With little sharp pieces of metal poking in the butt of the palm of my hand, a thin piece of plastic beneath my pinky, and a damn pickup selector that keeps getting in my way.

I kind of like that feeling (other than the selector part), and I definitely agree with Greg, it changes the way you play the guitar, the whole attack. It's much different from the wraparound on my Gibson, which is also different from the wraparound on my 350 (because of the string height). It's similar to my strat, but the strat lacks the coolness factor when playing it -- as soon as I start playing a telecaster, I start staggering around like Keef.

If you ask me what a telecaster needs in order to LOOK like a telecaster, that's easy-- it needs, in descending order of important (and again, according to my opinion), the control plate, the bridge plate, the pickguard and a metal-covered pickup at the neck. Doesn't even need the headstock. And definitely, it needs to stick to a minimalist design, none of that gaudy flamed/quilted maple gook. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no roomful of telecaster 'experts' can change that simple fact.

But if you ask me what I think (permission to speak sir!) makes the telecaster sound --well, I look for the differences between the telecaster and every other guitar. Which leads me back to the bridge plate and the bridge pickup.

Anyway, here's a great clip of The Black Keys : Yes, you too can become a telecaster expert!

someone who understands me... uuhhh and thank you a damn lot for the black keys video

well mickguards pretty much got my point. I know how Teles look, how they feel, how they sound through different amps.

and I don't want to build a Tele. I just wanted something with that similar raw sound. Teles are simple and what I'm about to build is rather fancy compared to the Tele design and is more of a big test then something focused and I just wanted to know how it might sound. If I wanted THE Tele sound why the hell shouldn't I stick to freakin everything Leo did?

Walnut body, goncalo alvez top, deep set padouk neck, ebony fretboard, tele baritone scale, p90 bridge, filtertron neck, SC in the middle added via push/push pot, master vol, master tone, big D varitone, and a Tele bridge plate maybe some chambering action -> some space for my tiny belly for sure... DC design - probably, better high fret acces? ..I really think so.. A nice positioned 3way toggle? - go ahead

I just felt it was time for something raw, straighter, crispier than my current axe (a SG special which I really love but even the lovely handwound Bareknuckle Crawler pups don't bring it that much, compared to a Tele through my amp it sounds mushy and I really like the SC positions on my JP wiring SG and the scratchy trebbly sounds). My amp is already reallllllllly nice(Framus ruby riot, you gotta check that out) and sounds really straight and you have to watch your technique quite a bit more than on other amps(fender for example) whatever. YoU got my point, right?

btw. my scandinavian friend do you sel those p90 tele hybrids?

what do you guys think of that little fella here:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Tele-Replacement-Bridge...1QQcmdZViewItem ?

if I'll take that pup I could use a standard bridge plate as well... so what should I get? 3 or 6 vintage saddles? compensated? What's the difference between the Wilkinson WT3 and that one?http://store.guitarfetish.com/wicotebrbrsa.html ? brass saddles? I guess so...

so gimme some input on that please (even if it's from legends and storytellers and you didn't really play it)

Edited June 5, 2006 by TheCross

[Mickguard]

someone who understands me... uuhhh and thank you a damn lot for the black keys video

You n' me against the world, bud.

btw. my scandinavian friend do you sel those p90 tele hybrids?

I was thinking of asking the same thing. Though that ebay pickup could be cool --it's not too expensive, could be worth a try. Because you definitely have to keep the bridge plate.

As for the saddles, I tend toward less is more... the original telecasters got by without perfect intonation--and they invented rock 'n roll on those... worse comes to worse, you can replace them later with the intonated type.

[TheCross]

someone who understands me... uuhhh and thank you a damn lot for the black keys video

You n' me against the world, bud.

btw. my scandinavian friend do you sel those p90 tele hybrids?

I was thinking of asking the same thing. Though that ebay pickup could be cool --it's not too expensive, could be worth a try. Because you definitely have to keep the bridge plate.

As for the saddles, I tend toward less is more... the original telecasters got by without perfect intonation--and they invented rock 'n roll on those... worse comes to worse, you can replace them later with the intonated type.

n what if I didn't want it to be THAT vintage? Just because Benz wrote history inventing the automobile in 1894 I wouldn't trade it for my air-conditioned automatic on a hot summerday if I wanted to drive the same track Benz did, got me?

What I want to say is that those vintage-vintage parts will probably cause me more trouble than they will bring me any major advantages being a guitarist and not a purist or vintagist.

btw. here's a quick drawing of what the guitar might look like.... though the pups and bridge aren't correct... but that's nothing major to change if the project becomes more serious...

Edited June 5, 2006 by TheCross

[Mickguard]

n what if I didn't want it to be THAT vintage? Just because Benz wrote history inventing the automobile in 1894 I wouldn't trade it for my air-conditioned automatic on a hot summerday if I wanted to drive the same track Benz did, got me?

Well, in that case, you've got plenty of options to choose from --just pick your flavor.

I have the set of 3-barrel Graphtech stringsavers --they do indeed intonate just great. Cuts a bit of the highs though (they call it boosting the midrange ) but that might work with your P90 idea.