mikhailgtrski

Hmmm... the T-Bridge is a passive piezo pickup, I didn't install a preamp (Ctrl-X or the like) with it.

Thanks for posting this, Paul. I'm currently running my T-Bridge into a 5 meg volume pot, through a mag/both/piezo toggle, then to an outboard f/x processor via the "ring" on a stereo cable. It's a pretty good faux-acoustic sound, although I have to boost the lows and highs a bit to get it sounding more acoustic-ish. And I'm getting some crosstalk - magnetic p/u signal bleeding into the piezo in the "both" setting... not sure if it's a wiring problem or cable capacitance/inductance/impedance issue...??? Would a little onboard buffer like this improve the tone and possibly solve the crosstalk issue? Thanks for your help, Mike

Meth addiction will make people do horrible (and stupid) things. No kidding.

Seattle Times article

+10

4-input old-school tube amp: Normal + Brilliant channels linked, volumes usually @ 9-10 Master volume @ 9-10 Guitar volume @ 10 for lead work, backed off for cleaner stuff, or just play lighter (or both, that's the beauty of a good tube amp) If I was playing clean only I might set the input channel volumes @ 5 and turn up the guitar volume. If that old National is a tube amp, I'd probably do like your friend does - amp on 10, guitar volume controls the gain (it worked for Hendrix ). If the guitar's electronics are set up right you shouldn't be losing any tone. I added a treble bleed circuit to mine so it doesn't get muddy when I roll the volume down.

Just a suggestion - try to get by with as few eq tweaks as possible. If you have a good guitar and amp, too much eq will start to sound "artificial" and detract from the "organic vibe". IMO For a long time I used a MIDI tube preamp + tube power amp rig... it worked pretty well. But I've since gone back to a "real" tube amp head and just using the guitar volume for clean/dirty. There's something to that classic guitar-->amp-->cab setup that you can't recreate with rack gear. I do like rack processors post-amp, though. I've only heard good things about Avatar cabs. For speakers, though, I highly recommend WeberVST. Email Ted and tell him what tone you want - he probably has just what you're looking for. Mike

Hey, neighbor! Exceptional work, as always!

Seems I stirred things up a bit... I don't know how much difference you'd hear in a guitar tone circuit (I didn't even put one in my guitar), but I'm certain that there are audible differences when different caps are used in amplifier tone stacks.

FWIW - this is Mojo's comparison: Guitar Capacitor Characteristics We tested a few various caps for guitar and discovered some subtle but noticable differences. These were all .022 caps used on the bridge position pickup of a Gibson SG. The various types were in order Orange Drop .022 @ 100v, Dijon .022 @630v, Ceramic Disc .022 @ 50v, and Vitamin T .022 @ 600v. Orange Drop- Warmer and rounder than the ceramic disc but slightly sterile on the top end. Not very transparent when rolled back(No Sparkle) Dijon- Nice Warmth and round tone with a smooth organic top end sparkle. Remained transparent when rolled back. Vitamin T- Much like the Dijon but slightly warmer and spongier than the Dijon with a little less transparency on the top end. Ceramic Disc- Sterile, Harsh and piercing top end and very sterile on the roll back. In a nut shell the Dijons and the Vitamin T's are a more organic sounding cap (The top end is much like a tube amps' characteristics) The Orange Drops and Ceramic Discs were a more sterile sounding cap (The top end is much like a solid state amps' characteristics)

I mask off the neck pocket.

No kidding, stumbled across this site today...

Mojo Vitamin T Anybody tried them in a guitar tone/treble bleed circuit, or tube amp tonestack? Values from .001uF to .1uF. Supposedly similar build to their "Dijon" caps, but with a mineral oil dielectric.

Yeah, over-the-top looks 'wrong' to me... the latest Stewmac Trade Secrets newsletter mentioned that Page & Gibbons both prefer it, though. There's really no wrong way, as long as it works and you get the tone you like.

I don't think those titles are necessarily mutually exclusive... A little troublemaking now and then is a good thing.

A very accurate description. I suppose on an LP you could also wrap the strings over the top of the stopbar to reduce the break angle.

Thanks, yes, Perry aka rhoads56 corrected that mis-statement... he is one of the "sages" around here. To muddy the waters even more... my son informed me that he restrung it with a .011 - .048 (Power Slinky) set when he borrowed it recently. I normally use a .010 - .052 (LTHB) set.

It does have some sympathetic vibration going on behind the nut as well (the headstock is similar to the PRS configuration) but it's not bad, and doesn't really show up at the amp. I played it again tonight through the amp, and the issue at the saddle end doesn't seem to be a problem either. Funny, I was considering a different bridge pickup to try to dial out some of the harshness and overly tight low end I was hearing. Turns out it wasn't an electronics problem after all.

Thanks, Perry! I'll revert to my previous understanding... It does makes sense that, as you mentioned, a reduced break angle might cause an increase in the sympathetic vibrations behind the bridge. David Myka told me he's never had that issue with his guitars, so I'll have to figure out what I'm doing differently.

Thanks, I'd always (incorrectly) assumed that the tension between the nut and saddle remains constant for a given string gauge and pitch. As far as adding a severe angle - before it had a more severe break at the ferrules, going into the body. Now it has a less severe, more rounded break across the rosewood bar, and hardly any break at the ferrules. Now I've gotta finish the nut - I did a quicky job on the slots, just to get it going, and a couple of the strings bind a bit...

Your middle name is "Danger", right?

Exactly, and whether it was one change or all of them working together, it's a definite improvement. But I really would like to understand the physics someday. Of course, last night I picked it up and found that the overtone on the G really didn't go away, in fact it seems worse now... what was I listening to? A little chewing gum should take care of it.

...actually --I think-- I replaced one sharp break at the ferrules with a slightly less sharp break over the rosewood bar and a very slight break at the ferrules. So we've got lots of possibilities here... I need to re-read that thread of yours. Then there's the X factor - a hunk of rosewood creating another vibration transmission point. Mucks it up for science, but great for playing. (I can hear Perry's eyes rolling all the way from Down Under).

...in my case I've decreased the break angle -and- lengthened the string slightly.

Good call, Setch. Yeah, now that I think of it, the path did get longer... exact same strings but with a little less slack wound on the tuner posts. So, do you think the extra - s t r e t c h - is helping to give it that LP-ish tone? A little string or rubber band wound through them?... might look kinda funky, though. Mandolins often have some sort of dampener under a metal cover.