A controversial but mostly correct video.

By on correctly you mean with sufficient angle to create enough pressure on the rollers to not sound thin. But even that can’t save the design when you actually use it. The design is very user friendly which is how it got going but if you look at what happens to the strings when you use it and the subsequent consequence to the sustain. The problem is the lack of a fixed point at the saddles. When you depress the bar it allows a small amount of dead string in to the vibrating part which then uses string energy to start it vibrating from static. This seriously impacts on the remaining energy. Now look at what happens when you pull up ; it draws vibrating string over the roller stopping it dead and forcing the node points to adjust to the new position. Now do both back and forth. Yes it’s a string damper. 50% or more energy is wasted because of the non fixed point during use. Now add a behind the nut clamp and high part count between the string witness point and the body .
It can sound ok as long as you don’t use it but the angle required is rarely available and the system is very poor sounding acoustically. This translates obviously and the vast majority of good players noticed and abandoned it pretty quickly.
 
Eagle said:
By on correctly you mean with sufficient angle to create enough pressure on the rollers to not sound thin. …
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s what I meant. You have to sink them flush with the guitar body, just routing for the spring pocket isn’t enough in almost every case. The models made for Gibson tailpiece studs just didn’t seem to be very well implemented but the Kahlers installed inset on a superstrat were actually very excellent. I’ve always preferred them to any Floyd Rose.

I’m thinking the real reason they fell out of favor was they couldn’t keep up with production and lost the Carvin and Charvel accounts. Then they had legal battles with counterfeiters. Not sure which happened first or if one caused the other.

I understand what you mean about vibration over the rollers but in practice that’s a non-issue.
 
For the record, I still :love the Kahler Spyder on my 89' HM Strat (I also have a Floyd Rose super strat), which was a Mesa-Boogie tester I bought from their Holly-weird store in 94' ~ They had Tom Anderson load it with TA SD1+SD1rw+H3 pups, cause the Dimarzios sucked!

:chef
 
HomespunEffects said:
Yes. That’s what I meant. You have to sink them flush with the guitar body, just routing for the spring pocket isn’t enough in almost every case. The models made for Gibson tailpiece studs just didn’t seem to be very well implemented but the Kahlers installed inset on a superstrat were actually very excellent. I’ve always preferred them to any Floyd Rose.

I’m thinking the real reason they fell out of favor was they couldn’t keep up with production and lost the Carvin and Charvel accounts. Then they had legal battles with counterfeiters. Not sure which happened first or if one caused the other.

I understand what you mean about vibration over the rollers but in practice that’s a non-issue.
Click to expand...
The performance is certainly not a non- issue compared to a Floyd. That has non of these issues and considerably better sustain , resonance and energy transfer to the body. You can feel and hear it easily if you vibrato a note on both systems on a similar guitar. I used to fit them but ended up removing quite a few from pro players that couldn’t live with the huge loss of resonance. In essence they are the same design as a Bigsby. Absolutely no where near the sonic performance of a Floyd however you fit them ( in use ) for the reason I stated above.
 
Funk Soul Brother said:
For the record, I still :love the Kahler Spyder on my 89' HM Strat (I also have a Floyd Rose super strat), which was a Mesa-Boogie tester I bought from their Holly-weird store in 94' ~ They had Tom Anderson load it with TA SD1+SD1rw+H3 pups, cause the Dimarzios sucked!

:chef
Click to expand...
The Spyder is a Floyd and had non of these issues.
In fact the Steeler ( there best bridge by far) is one of the best Floyds.
 
Eagle said:
The performance is certainly not a non- issue compared to a Floyd. That has non of these issues and considerably better sustain , resonance and energy transfer to the body. You can feel and hear it easily if you vibrato a note on both systems on a similar guitar. I used to fit them but ended up removing quite a few from pro players that couldn’t live with the huge loss of resonance. In essence they are the same design as a Bigsby. Absolutely no where near the sonic performance of a Floyd however you fit them ( in use ) for the reason I stated above.
Click to expand...
How many did you fit below surface mount? “Huge loss” is hyperbole.
 
HomespunEffects said:
How many did you fit below surface mount? “Huge loss” is hyperbole.
Click to expand...
A few but that only helps the tone when you’re not using it. As soon as you move the strings back and forth over the roller it sucks badly ( compared to a Floyd).
 
Last edited:
Eagle said:

The thing he misses at the end is probably because he has skin in the game.
I would add the best materials and man hours on finer detail have a cost that can’t be avoided. Basically quality moves the goalposts up but the rest stands.
I have long argued the a good cheap guitar will be a simple one but made of quality core materials not fancy tops and bindings to cover the truth. A single cut LP junior is a testament to how to make cheap good .
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I agree with the video.

There used to be some truth to e.g US or European built guitars being better than ones from Asia, but that hasn't been the case ever since the Japanese caught up. Then the South Korean ones got a lot better, and nowadays guitars made in e.g Indonesia can be extremely well made. There's nothing but minor cosmetic flaws on my Indonesian Ibanez BTB33 bass or my Schecter Coupe hollowbody.

Vintage is a load of bollocks because it basically works on prestige rather than actual quality. My ~45 year old Yamaha semihollowbody = "just some old guitar", a 45 year old Gibson or Fender = "OMG, so vintage, so good, worth a lot of money!" That doesn't mean there's not great guitars that are old, but the brand on the headstock is no guarantee.

I agree with your premise too. It would be better if cheaper guitars went for nice solid finishes so they could use uglier wood but put the savings into e.g higher quality bridge or electronics. Like say a simple Tele, that still has pickups that make it sound nice and fat instead of wiry and thin.

At least we are past the worst of the veneer tops + abalone binding craze that plagued Asian made guitars in the early 2000s. Schecter probably still makes some like that, but they've got a lot nicer designs now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top