ShortScale.org

I'm with Fran. I've modded almost every guitar I own, I just don't see the mastery as a cost to improvement ratio, worth it. I've also never felt like the bridge was really a weak point.

Also, I don't see how going out and buying the most expensive bridge on the market makes you even comparable to EVH. Didn't he do the opposite and take the cheapest stuff and make it for him? I'm no EVH expert but my guess is that if he was playing a jaguar or mustang, he'd find a solution that wasn't $180.

What does it matter what it costs if you have no intention of ever buying one? I don't know how much a Chanel handbag costs, but I know it's no more functional than one from Primark. I have no use for a Chanel handbag so I don't need to have an opinion on their retail price. Even so I wouldn't begrudge someone the right to spend their money on one just because other cheaper bags are available that will also enable them to tote their bits and bobs around.

How many people mithering about the cost of materials/alternatives are kitted out in gear made in Far eastern sweatshops for a very vulgar fraction of the retail price? Chinese Doc Martens are the footwear of choice for offset-playing blooze lawyers. So what?

UlricvonCatalyst wrote:

Doog wrote:

Fran wrote:As for the Tele Mastery, can someone tell me why it even exists?

It looks like the saddles are the same as on the offset bridge, so it makes sense to extend their potential customer base without designing and building a 100% new product.. but yeah, it seems like the features aren't really as suited to the Tele as much as a tremolo-based guitar.

Isn't it designed for Teles with Bigsbys? If not, then I will gladly concede it's a pointless extravagance when a brass-saddle bridge is already available from Fender. I have an idea that I read about it when it came out and it said it was aimed at Bigsby users, which would make sense.

It's not. It's a direct standard Tele bridge replacement.
http://www.masterybridge.com/tele-bridge/

Oh well, one man's pointless extravagance is another man's necessity.

benecol wrote:This. And disagree strongly with everyone trying to stop the bridge rocking - that's part of the beauty of it.

I disagree with trying to stop a stock Mustang/Jaguar/Jazzmaster bridge from rocking. I think it's a bad idea. I believe that their saddle designs do not have enough "slip" to where they can stay in one place and not keep the strings from moving. Maybe if you have GraphTech saddles on your bridge, they do, but not otherwise. Same goes for Tune-O-Matic bridges.

Doog wrote:The whole "ohhh, offsets were the cool, affordable underdog, now they're mainstream" is siiiiiiilly, weren't Jazzmasters and Jaguars the fancy option originally? It's just a superimposed cyclical phenomenon, just like music. Let's all buy cheap-as-chips SuperStrats and get perms.

you do have a superstrat... and your hair is quite curly...

Fran wrote:The only reason these aftermarket upgrades came about was because people want the hardware to perform beyond its capability, which is fair enough. Enter the new upgraded designs like the Classic Players.

While I have not played a Classic Player's, I have used trems with Tune-O-Matic style bridges, and I honestly think they're worse than floating Fender bridges when using a trem. First of all, there's too much binding and pinching on Tune-O-Matic saddles. The only way you can reduce that is by having it rock or by having very slippery saddles, and honestly, even bridges that have quite a bit of give, like ABR bridges, need well lubricated saddles IMO. So hence roller saddles (which I think are largely crap, except for Wilkinson, Schaller, etc.) or GraphTech saddles. Plus, in the process of going to a different bridge, they've updated the rest of the specs in ways I do not appreciate. I've played two Japanese offsets with Tune-O-Matic bridges now, the HH (hardtail) and the Cobain (vibrato). While the HH is very solid, the Cobain in a lot of ways held worse tuning under whammy use than a stock Mustang, and that's with a very loose ABR. I'm happy with the Cobain now since I put a modded Wilkinson on it, but I think it's simply untrue that Adjust-O-Matic fixes the tuning problem.

Fran wrote:Lets get this straight, i suppose i come across as some purist dinosaur in this thread that is anti-progression but im not, i have modified and tinkered with nearly every guitar i have owned. My issue here is the cost to improvement ratio, i can understand why something like a Kahler or Floyd Rose is costly but not this.

To me, I have become more and more picky about saddle design. When it's made of slippery materials, like TUSQ XL (Teflon, basically), it really matters dick. However, when made of metal, it matters a lot. A Floyd achieves tuning stability through clamping (so that there are no metal to metal contact points), but introduces some inconveniences to make it happen. Lubrication is cool but it only lasts so long.

If you look at good Strat bridges that return to tune, like Callaham or Wilkinson, it's the metal to metal contact points that have been optimized. A knife edge minimizes the friction between the plate and the screws. The saddles are more sloped so that there are no sharp places where they might be pitted. I believe this is necessary on a Strat since the string angle is quite sharp going into the block. Then the whole thing is made of very hard materials so that it doesn't degrade over time. As a result, even without lubrication, these bridges largely hold tune. Mastery does similar things, but with a completely different design. Because the break angle is so mild on offsets, I believe the best way to maximize stability is to have a very fine point of contact with deep pitting. That's what the Mastery offers. You can't really get this on a standard Mustang bridge because the moment you modded the saddles to have deeper grooves (first of all, what are they anyway, zinc?), the back end of the strings would hit the screws and you'd have buzzing. That's unavoidable. That's why you need the weird offset style saddles. Why they went with 3+3 instead of 2+2+2, I don't know.

Fran wrote:I dunno, you seem to have opted for the costly quick fix here. How did you tinker with the original design? What did you try to make it work for you?
I'm not being a dick either, i am genuinely curious.

I've been through several Mustangs. As far as the bridge goes, there's not much you can do. I've used it stock, I've flipped it around to avoid buzzing, and I've taped it. I've lubricated it. I went from 9s to 11s to 10s. That's about all you can do with that bridge, isn't it? The only Jag I ever had came with a Mustang bridge so honestly I've never had the misfortune of having to work with a vintage style Jazz/Jag bridge.

SKC Willie wrote:Also, I don't see how going out and buying the most expensive bridge on the market makes you even comparable to EVH. Didn't he do the opposite and take the cheapest stuff and make it for him? I'm no EVH expert but my guess is that if he was playing a jaguar or mustang, he'd find a solution that wasn't $180.

The story often gets told about how his first guitar was a bunch of cheap parts put together but if you actually go a little deeper, you'll find that he was using the original 1958 Strat bridge, and the original Gibson PAF pickups, which were not cheap parts even then (he said PAFs cost $100 in 70s money). So yeah, sure some of the parts he bought to make his first Frankenstrat were cheap (like then, like now, cheap bodies and necks are plentiful), but the bridge and pickups, the meat of that guitar, it was hardly low end stuff. Just saying...

stewart wrote:if i had some spare money lying about i wouldn't mind trying a mastery bridge, but it's not high on my list of priorites. maybe they do only cost $25 to make, but that's not how business works. the shoes on your feet probably cost $1 to make but you'll pay $50 for them. if the guy's making a living from a small business in such a niche market, good on him.

^agree with all of this. this is not some piss cheap mass manufactured mustang bridge made in some huge factory in china where they can carefully control the costs to be as cheap as possible. this is a custom machined piece of hardware made by what is likely a one man operation. it's a niche market item, he isn't churning out dozens every second. so he is decently compensated for his work, is that such a problem? if it is, don't buy it then. this guy developed this shit entirely on his own, he can charge whatever he wants for it.

benecol wrote:

stewart wrote:if i had some spare money lying about i wouldn't mind trying a mastery bridge, but it's not high on my list of priorites.

This. And disagree strongly with everyone trying to stop the bridge rocking - that's part of the beauty of it.

yes, but I thought that's what mastery bridges do, they fit snuggly into the cups so it doesn't rock and increases sustain and yada yada.

honeyiscool wrote:If you look at good Strat bridges that return to tune, like Callaham or Wilkinson, it's the metal to metal contact points that have been optimized.

I think you're going a bit berserk with your wallet on this one; I've only ever met one strat bridge that couldn't be tamed, and that was an issue with the tension springs. As long as there are no burrs or binding at saddle or nut, you don't need to replace the bridge.

honeyiscool wrote:I've been through several Mustangs. As far as the bridge goes, there's not much you can do. I've used it stock, I've flipped it around to avoid buzzing, and I've taped it. I've lubricated it. I went from 9s to 11s to 10s. That's about all you can do with that bridge, isn't it? The only Jag I ever had came with a Mustang bridge so honestly I've never had the misfortune of having to work with a vintage style Jazz/Jag bridge.

You have had some bad luck then, there are inconsistencies in mass production and the quality will vary. Personally i've had Mustang bridges that were fine and some that were garbage. By this i mean gaps between the saddles, poorly machined screw holes all leading to rattling and buzzing. Same goes for the Jag/Jazzy bridge.
All this is fixable on a tight budget and there was a time there was no other choice other than drilling out the body for a TOM.
I actually think its cool someone has come up with an instant fix bridge for people that cant fix it themselves but you know what i think about the price and im not keen on the fixed bridge idea without roller saddles using a tremolo. The saddles may not 'pinch' like TOM saddles but there will be friction.
The improved sustain theory is kind of an half arsed attempt to make the guitar something it isn't by design.
Bottom line is, there seriously comes a point when people should consider getting over aesthetics and their pretentious image and consider buying a guitar that actually suits them by design.

Fran wrote:Bottom line is, there seriously comes a point when people should consider getting over aesthetics and their pretentious image and consider buying a guitar that actually suits them by design.

You having a dig at me, shitlips?

benecol wrote:

Fran wrote:Bottom line is, there seriously comes a point when people should consider getting over aesthetics and their pretentious image and consider buying a guitar that actually suits them by design.

You having a dig at me, shitlips?

Im having a dig at a lot of people including myself

Fran wrote:

benecol wrote:

Fran wrote:Bottom line is, there seriously comes a point when people should consider getting over aesthetics and their pretentious image and consider buying a guitar that actually suits them by design.

You having a dig at me, shitlips?

Im having a dig at a lot of people including myself

funnily enough, there was a guy at that gig in nottingham you were at who told me that during our set he turned to his mate and said "there's a reason he's strumming so much, he's playing a fucking jaguar". essentially, if you want sustain, buy something else.

stewart wrote:

Fran wrote:

benecol wrote: You having a dig at me, shitlips?

Im having a dig at a lot of people including myself

funnily enough, there was a guy at that gig in nottingham you were at who told me that during our set he turned to his mate and said "there's a reason he's strumming so much, he's playing a fucking jaguar". essentially, if you want sustain, buy something else.

I noticed the drop-jaw glares at your Jag but am surprised to hear someone actually knew about the Jag. You know?
Nevermind, one day that guy will discover the Mastery Bridge and be able to play anything and sustain forever

Thom wrote:I just don't understand what problem they are trying to 'fix' with the Tele mastery.

People that can't set up their tele properly. Pretty much the same "problem" they're trying to fix with the Jag/Jazz version.

UlricvonCatalyst wrote:What does it matter what it costs if you have no intention of ever buying one? I don't know how much a Chanel handbag costs, but I know it's no more functional than one from Primark. I have no use for a Chanel handbag so I don't need to have an opinion on their retail price. Even so I wouldn't begrudge someone the right to spend their money on one just because other cheaper bags are available that will also enable them to tote their bits and bobs around.

How many people mithering about the cost of materials/alternatives are kitted out in gear made in Far eastern sweatshops for a very vulgar fraction of the retail price? Chinese Doc Martens are the footwear of choice for offset-playing blooze lawyers. So what?

you are completely missing my point, homie. Again, I said I have no problem with the guy charging $180 dollars for a piece he machines one by one. I don't know what his business model is and I feel like if we was doing that he would say. I don't care what you spend your money on. You can go buy a Chanel handbag for all I care. I'm saying, fundamentally, I do not think the "better performance" is worth the price.

Fran wrote:

stewart wrote:

Fran wrote:Im having a dig at a lot of people including myself

funnily enough, there was a guy at that gig in nottingham you were at who told me that during our set he turned to his mate and said "there's a reason he's strumming so much, he's playing a fucking jaguar". essentially, if you want sustain, buy something else.

I noticed the drop-jaw glares at your Jag but am surprised to hear someone actually knew about the Jag. You know?
Nevermind, one day that guy will discover the Mastery Bridge and be able to play anything and sustain forever

he correctly guessed what year it was from. said he had a '65 mustang, he was into his guitars.

stewart wrote:

Doog wrote:The whole "ohhh, offsets were the cool, affordable underdog, now they're mainstream" is siiiiiiilly, weren't Jazzmasters and Jaguars the fancy option originally? It's just a superimposed cyclical phenomenon, just like music. Let's all buy cheap-as-chips SuperStrats and get perms.

you do have a superstrat... and your hair is quite curly...

Fran wrote:You have had some bad luck then, there are inconsistencies in mass production and the quality will vary. Personally i've had Mustang bridges that were fine and some that were garbage. By this i mean gaps between the saddles, poorly machined screw holes all leading to rattling and buzzing. Same goes for the Jag/Jazzy bridge.
All this is fixable on a tight budget and there was a time there was no other choice other than drilling out the body for a TOM.
I actually think its cool someone has come up with an instant fix bridge for people that cant fix it themselves but you know what i think about the price and im not keen on the fixed bridge idea without roller saddles using a tremolo. The saddles may not 'pinch' like TOM saddles but there will be friction.
The improved sustain theory is kind of an half arsed attempt to make the guitar something it isn't by design.
Bottom line is, there seriously comes a point when people should consider getting over aesthetics and their pretentious image and consider buying a guitar that actually suits them by design.

The gaps between the saddles and stuff like that, I've not encountered that on any recent Mustangs. Honestly, I think you're reading a little further into what I'm saying. I haven't had a crippling problem with recent Mustang bridges, yet I still believe that the Mastery bridge is better. It's possible to have that opinion, don't you think? Mustangs have been around almost 50 years. Someone might have improved something that didn't necessarily need to be improved, and I believe someone did. I'm not saying people need to go out and replace all their bridges, but it's great that we have an option that is a lot more optimal than a mismatched radius TOM.

As for price, I don't know. Price is just supply and demand. When supply is small and demand is small, prices pretty much set to what they need to be. Why is a mint 1966 Jaguar worth $13,000 anyway? That shit didn't cost $13k to build. Whoever bought that guitar didn't pay 1/25 that price. Why do we act like it's a steal if someone gets that guitar for $2,000? It didn't cost $2,000 new either. Buyers want to spend as little as possible, but the market decides the price. Apparently we understand that for vintage items, but...

If everyone in the world who is willing to pay $160 for a Mastery bridge already has one, then obviously the guy who makes them will no longer sell them and therefore go out of business. I mean, how many people in the world would be interested in a Mastery bridge anyway, regardless of price? If it takes a run of 2500 to get the price down to $50, that's certainly not a risk I'd be willing to take. I'm not sure 2500 people out there even have $50 worth of interest in it. Too much initial investment. I'd rather make a profit on every sale instead.

Anyway, as for your last statement, I agree but the problem is, I love Mustangs because their unique specs actually suit me well. You look at guitars out there, and largely people want good looking woods, full-sized bodies, longer scale necks, flatter necks, everything but a Mustang. If someone made a guitar with that scale, lesser weight, slim and low radius neck, well nobody other than Fender does so it's not even worth talking about. The ORM is the closest thing to a Mustang I've ever found and that thing is not even close to the same ballpark.

Really, the main things that an average Joe with power tools cannot do is build a neck from scratch. If you find a guitar with a neck you love, do whatever you need to get it to be perfect for you.

SKC Willie wrote:you are completely missing my point, homie. Again, I said I have no problem with the guy charging $180 dollars for a piece he machines one by one. I don't know what his business model is and I feel like if we was doing that he would say. I don't care what you spend your money on. You can go buy a Chanel handbag for all I care. I'm saying, fundamentally, I do not think the "better performance" is worth the price.

The difficulty is, until you try it, your opinion can be dismissed as "haven't tried it." Likewise, my opinion can be dismissed as "you have to justify the money you spent." Overall, not a productive discussion, that price discussion.

benecol wrote:I think you're going a bit berserk with your wallet on this one; I've only ever met one strat bridge that couldn't be tamed, and that was an issue with the tension springs. As long as there are no burrs or binding at saddle or nut, you don't need to replace the bridge.

I get it. You don't like me and you don't value my opinion. I understand that. I'm not going to try to change your opinion on this, so can we stop with the little personal digs everywhere? Thanks.