#1
So, it seems that with FR guitars, the body surface is parallel with the fretboard, and stays in line with it all the way from the end of the fretboard to the bridge. Whereas with fixed Tune-o-matic type bridges, the body seems to angle back toward you (the player), making the body not parallel with the fretboard and putting more distance between the strings and the body by the time you get to the bridge.

It makes it comfier for me to play on TOM bridge guitars for this reason (mainly when playing standing), as it seems to make more room for my wrist to not have to bend to reach the bass strings/palm mute, and to not have a slab of body jabbing into my forearm.

Does anyone else feel the same way? That TOM bridge guitars are comfier to play on? I've always liked being able to use a tremolo, but the fact that the way the body is angled changes my comfort level is kind of a downer for me right now. Action is set up pretty much equally on both guitars.

Thoughts?

Btw, here are some pics to visually demonstrate what I mean:



Last edited by fixationdarknes at Aug 20, 2011,
#2
I hate TOMs, both because of the way the bridge feels and the neck angle.
#3
I go from decent to bad when playing on guitars that have the non parallel structure or whatever you call it
#4
I prefer tune-o-matics when sitting. if I'm standing I'd take a straight neck any day.

I remember not too long ago someone posted a guitar he was building and it had a recessed tune-o-matic so he could eliminate the neck angle
1978 Peavey T-40 -> Ampeg Micro-VR - > Ampeg SVT210AV + Ampeg SVT-15E
#5
while there tends to be correlation, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. if you prefer floyds, but the neck angle normally associated with TOMs, you can get a guitar with a floyd and a neck angle.

Or if it's a bolt-on you could just shim the neck.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#6
I don't care really.

It doesn't matter if I play with a FR or a TOM. My playing stays the same.
#7
I simply prefer TOM's because of the ease of use and the lack of hassle when changing strings and tuning. I tried out an OFR once and didn't like it. They're just not for me and my playing style. But I do see the difference between the two in those pictures. I've always figured that OFR-equipped guitars looked like they had much lower action along with being more parallel with the neck and bridge.
ESP Eclipse II SW - D'Addario 11-49 Eb
LTD F-400FM - Ernie Ball 12-56 C#
Ibanez Iceman 300
Peavey Transtube 112 EFX
#9
Quote by Dave_Mc
while there tends to be correlation, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. if you prefer floyds, but the neck angle normally associated with TOMs, you can get a guitar with a floyd and a neck angle.

Or if it's a bolt-on you could just shim the neck.



Hm... how would I be able to tell if the FR guitar has the neck angle normally associated with TOMS, other than by seeing it myself in person?

And is shimming the neck something I could easily do? Would it really give me an angle that is the same as the angle that TOM guitars have?
#10
i guess you could email the manufacturer to ask. they should know. iirc some of the charvels have neck pitch.

And yeah, as far as i'm aware, shimming is pretty easy. I've never tried it myself (never really had to, though i might try it on my kramer for a laugh ), but there was a thread on musicradar recently about it, and someone explained how to do it.

http://www.musicradar.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1062697#post1062697 (last post in that thread, it shows you how to do it in pictures)

Far as i'm aware you can get a neck angle like the one you posted with the TOM with a big enough shim (the shim doesn't even have to be that big, because it's just angling the neck).
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#11
Hmm that seems really cool. Is there a limit to how much angle you can give the neck? Obviously you can't angle it TOO much but do you think you could safely/practically get an angle even bigger than those found on TOM-bridge guitars? At the moment I sort of feel like the more neck angle the more comfortable it is for me.

Thanks.
#13
Quote by fixationdarknes
Hmm that seems really cool. Is there a limit to how much angle you can give the neck? Obviously you can't angle it TOO much but do you think you could safely/practically get an angle even bigger than those found on TOM-bridge guitars? At the moment I sort of feel like the more neck angle the more comfortable it is for me.

Thanks.


dunno.

i'm guessing the limiting factor will be how much you can raise the trem posts.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#14
I like the extra space under the strumming area of a TOM bridge. Also, on guitar without tummy and contoured cut it makes the guitar body line up better while sitting.
G͔͓̅e͎͉̟̽ͬ͐̎̃͐ͨͅå͈͖͕̹̤̟̐̏͋ͅr̩͕̫̰̗s̹̳̼ͥ̒̍̄̅ͥ̚:


ESP Standard Eclipse I CTM VW
ESP LTD Deluxe H-1001
ESP LTD Deluxe Viper-1000 STBC
ESP Edwards E-EX-100STD
Warmoth Paulcaster "Tiger"
Tanglewood TW170 AS
Vox Tonelab ST
Blackstar HT-1R


#15
So has anyone shimmed the neck of a Floyd Rose guitar to the point that you have about as much neck angle as a TOM guitar?

I'm genuinely curious as this will be a deciding factor for my future guitar purchase(s).
#16
Nope. I love my RG2228's locking bridge. Plus, it's sexy as hell. Look at an Edge bridge in profile view... it looks like a spaceship. Though I don't mind my tune-o-matic, ever since I bought a new Gotoh replacement.
Ibanez RG2228 w/ EMG808Xs | Line 6 POD HD500 | Mackie HD1221
#18
I have an original Edge trem on one guitar and a string through tune o matic on another. It takes me a second to adjust to the Ibanez because I can't have my hand back as far as I can on a tune o matic. But when you go from an original wizard neck and an Edge to a fatter, Gibson style neck and a TOM, it takes a second to adjust.

If I remember correctly, a Floyd Rose system has a neck angle of like 4 or 5 degrees. Now I'm not a builder, but it would seem the Floyd doesn't sit as high because it's recessed into the body. TOMs sit right on top, no recessing necessary.

The radius of the fretboard may come into play too.
#19
Keep in mind, if you shim your guitar you actually lose almost all the real contact between the neck and the body. You'll have just a tiny bit of contact it on side, and on the other side you'll have a really small contact too, and with a shim between the woods which will probably make it even worse.
This way you just wasted all your fancy maple neck, you could almost put a plastic instead of it the way I see it.


Anyway if you do shim your neck you will have to raise the action A LOT (even with a very thin shim) to keep your action equal along the neck (which is exactly why you use a shim in the first place and not just raise your action), and as far as I know, the higher your tune-o-matic bridge is, the less sound it'll transfer to the body. So after doing this you will lose almost completely the affection of the whole neck, and lose some of the affection of the body.
The only way you can shim a neck properly is by crating a tonewood triangle, drilling it to allow the screws go through it, getting longer screws (especially the ones in the body side), and screwing it real tight. You can also glue the shim to the neck and the body, to maximize sounds transfer (with a proper glue).You can start with a pretty big shim and try to find the right angle, ALWAYS keeping it very straight. After you find the right triangle shim you can also crate another tonewood triangle to fit the other space between the neck and the body that's crated by the shim.
Anyway if you believe that wood affects the electric signal of your guitar or really cares about the unplugged sound I really don't suggest you to play with that!
Last edited by gnr_tb at Aug 26, 2011,
#21
TOM-equipped guitars have that neck angle to accommodate the extra space between the bridge and the body. If the neck were parallel the action on the higher frets would be beyond ridiculous. However you can also recess the bridge into the body a little bit and have a parallel neck pocket. From the building standpoint this is a little easier to do since you don't have to worry about cutting difficult angles on the bottom of a 3-sided hole.

I know angled neck pockets exist on flush-mounted Floyds, but I've never seen a regularly routed Floyd like that. If it did the strings would bottom out on the higher frets and not be able to ring freely. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, I'd like to see an example of a regular Floyd with an angled neck . Wow, triple negatives in one sentence?


They say a picture's worth a thousand words. Notice the first and last bridge are similar to a Floyd, while the middle two are TOM

Endorsed by Dean Guitars 07-10
2003 Gibson Flying V w/ Moon Inlay
2006 Fender All-American Partscaster
SVK ELP-C500 Custom

1964 Fender Vibro Champ
1989 Peavey VTM60

[thread="1166208"]Gibsons Historic Designs[/thread]
Last edited by Flux'D at Aug 26, 2011,
#22
there are floyd guitars with a neck angle more similar to a TOM. i forget the models but the floyd winds up being elevated off the body a bit. it's all in how the guitar is set up.

i prefer guitars with a neck angle, it's easier on my fretting hand's wrist. strats/teles bother me to play for longer periods because of the lack of neck angle.

it's really all personal preference. this is one of the reason why i prefer PRS McCartys and Les Pauls.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
Last edited by gregs1020 at Aug 26, 2011,
#23
You might be thinking of the non-recessed Floyd Roses. I had one like that on my old Kramer Baretta.
#24
Quote by Fenderexpx50
You might be thinking of the non-recessed Floyd Roses. I had one like that on my old Kramer Baretta.

yea, and i think there are a few models, i want to say jackson makes one as well.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#25
Quote by Flux'D



Like gregs is saying, regarding that last picture... can't you angle the neck and then raise the FR bridge up to accommodate? I mean, I was trying it last night with my FR guitar, just having the action really high on the high frets, imagining the neck being angled. But I don't know how far I can safely raise the FR bridge out of the cavity. Is there a practicality issue with raising it too high? I heard a lot of rattling from the bridge, but my FR bridge has been rattling a bit normally anyway. I'm not really sure why, maybe that's a whole 'nother story altogether.
#26
It might be your springs, I saw people in youtube putting some rubber inside their springs (it should be almost as big as the springs so it'll touch them everywhere) and that stopped the bridge resonance completely
You can try putting a nylon or something inside your strings you just need to take off the rear plate, you don't need to cut your strings or something
Last edited by gnr_tb at Aug 27, 2011,
#27
i think you're making more of the problems with the shim than really exist... if they sounded that bad, people wouldn't do it. I'd also point out that, on your diagram, the bridge would have to sit about a foot above the body of the guitar.

I had a couple of guitars which I thought had dodgy shims in them (i didn't take the neck off to check, as i was sending them back, and didn't want to do harm), and they sounded... fine.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#28
Well actually, studies show that the wood does not affect the electric signal. So putting a shim and destroying the neck (probably maple) effect and getting your bridge high will only affect your unplugged sound. In the worst case you'll just hear the strings when unplugged, without hearing your wood singing like in fat good guitars like Gibson LP and such. But it CAN harm your sustain for sure! I think you'll notice that only in the medium and low notes though.