ShortScale.org

I popped in some of those links for the guy and he is still arguing.... So I found another link about it with pictures. This guy is starting to piss me off now. Here are articles supporting my side... No those are wrong just cause I say so. Riiiighht...

Isn't it because there's just some hardheaded fucks that think they are the end all in guitar knowledge, even if they're far from it? This guy is one of those guys. Although, he may have a point with the shimmed neck thing, because at the end of that last link you posted, it says that the following things "contribute to a better feel on the fretboard": reducing the angle at the nut and bridge by mounting staggered posts tuning gears, and removing the string's trees, reducing the neck to body angle, lowering the tailpiece height will increase the strings attack, increasing the tailpiece height will produce a smoother attack.

So he's not entirely wrong. For the most part, he is though. Stupid, too.

What does increase or smooth attack mean?

Reducing the neck to body angle implies you're taking away a shim

George wrote:What does increase or smooth attack mean?

Reducing the neck to body angle implies you're taking away a shim

I'm probably just talking out of my ass, but I believe it's supposed to be like what sort of sound you get from the guitar when you hit the strings. Smooth attack would be like a thin guitar pick strumming a Strat with 9s. A hard attack would be a medium or heavy pick strumming a Jaguar with 11s. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also reducing the neck to body angle could be achieved by adding a shim, if the neck pocket is angled, or if you stick it at the edge of the neck pocket; but going by that same logic, increasing the neck to body angle affects the compliance as well.

rest assured you wouldn't be the only one talking out your arse in the guitar world lol

i've always thought attack was a quality of tone and not feel, namely the initial snap or jump in volume when you hit or dig into a string and how quickly it peaks. this is affected by many things but i've noticed pickup magnet differences, say between alnico 2 or alnico 5 magnets is a good contributor. overall this is gonna be taken over by amps and effects anyway. compression also smooths it out.

i'm aware of reverse shims but that's not really relevant to the application of a tom bridge. i think you're missing the point about compliance again. while the break angles created by a high bridge or string trees/staggered tuning heads (these work toward the same goal) create less compliance (more tautness), the distance of strings to body, or "action", is the same and doesn't change regardless of shim. shims (reverse or otherwise) really just raise or lower the overall floor of action available on the guitar. an increased break angle is one of the additional benefits (if that's what you want)

i dunno, in summation i find the whole thread sort of strange. i don't see much of an effort to actually impart knowledge to them. it seems like a loaded discussion built to fail. if you ask a bunch of kurdtz noobs why they do something they're only give you kurdtz noob answers. they and many others do something because someone told them to or they read it somewhere, and then they just regurgitate the misinformation wrong again. what do you expect? and it wasn't them that laid on the ad-hominems by the way.

none of them are gonna give you their real hidden answers which are probably:

1. the kurdtz did it
2. toms are more reliable for me (i.e. mustang bridges are too finicky to set up and i couldn't crack it)
3. tom's are more brutal metal (or something)

its just a shame that people have to clamour behind stuff to not feel silly. the same question on shortscale could have made a really interesting discussion and sharing of knowledge.

I honestly don't see the point in putting a TOM on a mustang still other than for teh kurdtz

I mean, mustang bridges aren't that finicky to set up considering there's no strings heights to bother with, and the rocking could be easily fixed more ways than just tape, and you'd have to be bashing your guitar to get srting jumps on a mustang bridge

however TOM on jagloluars i can understand entirely because i honestly have never wanted to fist fuck a bridge as hard as a squier jaguar bridge

also kinda cures the brightness of a jag a bit, i found that the TOM mad emy jag a bit warmer. i do leik

George wrote:alright here we go, this is better and shorter:

http://www.luthierforum.com/index.php?/ ... g-tension/

Compliance: ~ the stretchability of the strings. ie: Tight strings and a short bend to reach a desired pitch. OR soft easy to press down but long stretch to get that bend up to pitch when stretching on them strings. How "compliant" the strings are.

Compliance is determined by the "after length" which is the distance between the bridge and tailpiece or the nut and the tuners)...longer = softer string feel when cording and the string needs to be stretched farther across the fret to reach the desired note. Shorter after length = stiffer but much shorter distance to bend across the fret by comparison.

Compliance and tension are two different things, although most erroneously call them both tension. Two strings of the same gauge may have the same tension on them, but be of different compliances.

To change or adjust compliance, since the bridge cannot be moved, the tail piece must be adjusted to alter the length of the string between the bridge and the tailpiece there by changing the stiffness or softness ~ the compliance of the string.

So a reverse headstock would actually have a practical function other than looking teh metalz. The more you know.

sort of, unless you have string trees or a string bar or something which basically negates the difference

i'd also be interested to see what the effects would be if you had a locking floyd nut. for the benefit of compliance i think a reverse headstock or anything would be negligible in that case.

George wrote:sort of, unless you have string trees or a string bar or something which basically negates the difference

i'd also be interested to see what the effects would be if you had a locking floyd nut. for the benefit of compliance i think a reverse headstock or anything would be negligible in that case.

Maybe I'm missing something here but if a string tree would affect the string compliance wouldn't a locking nut do the same?

Paradigmforcosmos wrote:

George wrote:sort of, unless you have string trees or a string bar or something which basically negates the difference

i'd also be interested to see what the effects would be if you had a locking floyd nut. for the benefit of compliance i think a reverse headstock or anything would be negligible in that case.

Maybe I'm missing something here but if a string tree would affect the string compliance wouldn't a locking nut do the same?

sort of. i'm saying it doesn't matter what you put behind a floyd nut because once it's locked the path of the string has technically ended without any additional break angles or need for them. as the string ends so soon this might be way 9s on my jackson feels more taut than 9s on my strat. this is conjecture tbh

a string tree has this effect as well but it's probably not going to be anywhere near as pronounced, especially as there can still be movement behind the string tree with bends etc

so while a locking nut may eliminate the need for a string tree, they don't function quite the same.

Not read all the thread but i always thought the TOM marginally improved sustain, i had a JS with one on and i have the JMJM with one on. Both guitars seemed to sustain better than stock models.
I dont think anyone in the guitar world will disagree stock Jags, JM's and Mustangs suck at sustain compared to other models? They seem to make you dig in more and work harder. Might be the pups, or the trem or maybe it is the flimsy bridge design that connects to the body on two small pivot points?
Not saying they are rubbish, i've always tried to get the best out of them but it does make you wonder.

The Men Who got answers did an Whole in his head in 1994

apart this

Tom on mustang = i did for the lulz

i don´t find reasons to put Tom on my jag-stang , mustang bridge is "fine Enough" + Mad-Mike Mustang Tail Setup = perfectly stable

thus i enjoyed TOM on my Surf-Stang along string-thuru , Tom +String-Thuru = kool combo.

well said icey

I told him peace out and enjoy his tenser TOM. It is like arguing with a sponge...

I think the TOM on a Mustang thing is strictly for TeH kUrDtZ

According to kurtsequipment, the Competition Blue Mustang didn't get a TOM fitted until early 1993. I really think kurt just didn't know the stock mustang bridge could be adjusted with thin allen keys, there is an interview where he talks about adjusting the bridge with his fingers. Based on his frustrations with this, and his prior mustang which where just sanded down pieces of crap (I think he had three mustangs prior to the SLTS mustang, the sanded one, the righty and the one with the record pickguard) he probably just assumed that the later reissue models he got would need a TOM as well (they really didn't)

In fact the roseland mustang still had the stock bridge in it on first performance



In my opinion If you set up a reissue mustang correctly, you don't need to flip the tailpiece or put a TOM on it. In fact the saddles on the original bridge are better.

Then you have to also remember the statistics, kurt owned about 10 mustangs in his lifetime. Fender has produced probably over a million mustangs since 1964, if the bridge needed to be replaced, they would have fixed it by now.

as mentioned above, i would like to state my personal findings/opinions on an angled neck.
NO MATTER WHAT, THE STRINGS WILL GO FROM THE BRIDGE TO THE NUT. A STRAIGHT FUCKING LINE. THE ANGLE OF THE DANGLE WON'T FUCK UP THAT LINE.
the caps thing was an accident but i went with it cuz it made it seem like i was yelling.
yeah, fuck that dude, im just going to hit him in the mouth and call it a day.

murdok wrote:Fender has produced probably over a million mustangs since 1964, if the bridge needed to be replaced, they would have fixed it by now.

There are plenty of issues with Fender guitars that don't get fixed because guitarists are typically traditionalists to the point of being irrational and would have rather have things be as close as possible to the original spec than see them improved. I'm not saying the Mustang bridge is necessarily in that category just that the argument 'if it was broke Fender would have fixed it' doesn't hold up well because of the tastes of people who buy guitars.

very true james. just look at the floyd rose setup vs the improved steinberger design.

robert(original) wrote:i asked this on the j.s. boards since it seems to be the standard mod over there. i have never found it very useful except on one of my servicemens, mainly cuz the o.g. bridge was a straight peice of shit that didn't intonate at all, and since the neck was 4 inches off the body i didn't need to shim.
anywho, i asked, "WHY?" And the only reason that made any sense to me was that it prevents string choke on the high and low e. ok, that is cool
other explanations included, "it looks better" and "its easier to palm mute" "it increases string tension and thus improves tuning stability" tho the person in question had thier bridge locked down.... which makes no fucking sense to me at all.
does anyone here actually have a logical need for the TOM over the mustang bridge, especially on the mustang(the question was posted in the mustang section)
im not trying to start shit, im just wondering if i am somehow missing something with this.

skipping the whole thread..

I've tried a TOM on mustangs/jaguars/jazzmasters, and I just don't dig it..
I really like the mustang bridge, it works wonderfully.
Though I also dig the jag/jazz bridge, as then i can set my strings exactly where i want them (ie, so they don't pop when i'm playing.. i have that issue on mustangs the most.. must be how i strum)

hell I even replaced the TOM bridge that came on the HH jag with a mustang bridge (mine i also replaced the neck with a 66 duo sonic..)

and the jag/jazz bridge has been a god send on my modified Epi les paul.. though i did ad that jag/jazz trem to it as well.. so.. that could be why.

The only Mustang I've really had a lot of playing experience with already had a TOM in place.

I like it. I like the flatter radius of the TOM, it's the one thing I love about my Ibanez gibson-style guitar. Only thing I hate is how the neck had to be shimmed because of it, on my list of things to do is grind off the bottom of that bastard bridge so I can take the shims out.

However, if it had a stock mustang bridge, as long as I could have locked it so it didn't rock back and forth, I probably would have kept it. I replaced the shit bridge in my Jag with a Mustang bridge, so much better. In that case, I didn't like the taped posts, it does indeed takes away sustain. I switched from taped posts to the aluminium tubing approach to lock down the bridge on that guitar, love the shit out of it now.

TL;DR: The only real acceptable answer is the flatter radius of the TOM might be preferred. All of the rest is kinda bullshit, as long as the mustang bridge is locked from rocking, it's pretty much the same as the TOM.

However, I do not consider tape an acceptable solution. I think you can put washers on the bottom of the stock stang bridge to lock it, right?