Tonepros Nashville or ABR-1 on a Semi Hollow Body?

[iim7v7im7]

Hi,

I am having Heritage build me their version of a ES-335 known as a H535. I am having it built with Lollar Imperials, 1950s wiring, 500k pots and 0.02uf caps. They can build it with a Tonepros locking bridge/tailpiece.


My questions are:

Go with a Nashville or a ABR-1 style bridge?
[*]I have read that the ABR-1 has more bass and greater sustain
[*]I have read that a Nashville holds better intonation, has more balanced tone

Go with a normal locking tailpiece or a lightweight aluminum tailpiece?
[*]I have read that aluminum is brighter


I will be using this guitar to primarily play the blues with Fender blackface style amp. Is what I have read true? Which would you select and why?

Thanks,

Bob

[Quill]

Hey, ii-v-i. That's going to be a fine guitar.

Suprised no-one else has replied to you yet ... I've read quite a number of threads in the past, on other forums, about the pros and cons of these bridges, and am always interested in this question.

My two bits. I am in the process of clearing a space on my table so I can finally pull the damn Nashville out of my 335 and put in Callaham's take on the ABR-1. I wish I'd already done it, and could give you a description of the difference.

Regardless - I vote strongly for the ABR-1, if only for the fact that there is one less connection between the bridge and the guitar. The stud screws thread directly into the wood, rather than into a stud, and it is a fine and great-sounding system. And I like the way the saddles sit in an ABR-1 better - it just looks like a more direct and solid connection to the guitar. The fact that it depends on string tension for everything to stay put just makes it all the better, for me.

Nashvilles seem over-built to me. I can't prove it, but I think that bridge somehow "simplifies" the whole vibration system of the instrument - seems to me to take out all the nice overtones and emphasize the fundamental. This may be a good thing for some players, but I know it isn't a good thing for others. Straight into a blackface? I'd think you'd want the ABR-1.

One possible but probably controversial illustration of the difference: I think the ABR-1 bridge (along with the neck joint) is largely what creates the difference in sound between a Historic Les Paul and a Standard. Having seen lots of really great Standards, and having experienced huge differences in sound among Historics, it's hard for me to believe that the purportedly different grades of wood are the major reason for that. (It's probably all pretty good wood, with the largest differences mostly being in weight, which may or may not make for predictable differences in the quality of the sound. It's a point that's hard to be sure about.) But my point won't make sense at all unless you are willing to consider the possibility, as I believe is the case, that Historics have one kind of sound, kind of a broad, basic category of sound with variations within that category, and that the Standards have another kind of basic sound. My take on the basic difference is this: the Historics tend to have more overtones in the note, for better or for worse, while the Standards tend to give more fundamental. I could be totally wrong - and certainly it can't really be this simple - but I think it's the bridges that make this difference.

(... sometimes I wonder if an ABR-1 bridge, because of the way it seems to work with the acoustic qualities of the guitar, lets great wood sound great, and lets bad wood sound bad, whereas the more focused sound of the Nashville somehow evens things out, and makes all kinds of different wood sound sort of the same ... and I also wonder if the bland, very "electric" sound of Gibson's stock pickups, regardless of type, isn't similarly to the advantage of mediocre wood, or doesn't somehow flatten out the variations and compensate for less-than-perfect tonewoods that acoustically sensitive pickups might be wasted on ... but then I remember to take a breath and I start to feel better again ... !)

A well-made semi-hollow guitar with an ABR-1 (and Lollars, no less)? Does it get better than that?

If the bridge is located properly, you won't need the (slightly) larger range of adjustment that the Nashville has. The two great guitar repairmen I know have both told me about Nashville-to-ABR-1 conversions they have done; according to them, the guitar usually sounds better once the ABR-1 is fitted, and there are no intonation problems.

Just my thoughts on it. Whichever way you go, you are sure to end up with a fine guitar. Don't see a lot of Heritage guitars in my neck of the woods, but the ones that pass through the local shops are always really nice.

[iim7v7im7]

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. I have heard (rightly or wrongly) of too many cases where instrument's cannot be properly intonated due to improper placement of a ABR-1 and running out of saddle travel.

I am almost convinced that Gibson switched over for manufacturing reasons and not tone.

1) The die cast construction may have been less expensive to manufacture
2) The longer saddle travel compensated for sloppy placement tolerances

Regarding the mounting method, I had not even considered studs vs. straight into wood influencing the tone. It sounds like you have to decide on this one because there is no going back. There are conversion kits, but I suppose you never get the real wood connection. I am just alittle worried about what is coming out of Kalamazoo these days.

The Callaham looks like a beautiful bridge. Let me know how it works out?

:-)

Bob

Originally Posted by Quill

Hey, ii-v-i. That's going to be a fine guitar.

Suprised no-one else has replied to you yet ... I've read quite a number of threads in the past, on other forums, about the pros and cons of these bridges, and am always interested in this question.

My two bits. I am in the process of clearing a space on my table so I can finally pull the damn Nashville out of my 335 and put in Callaham's take on the ABR-1. I wish I'd already done it, and could give you a description of the difference.

Regardless - I vote strongly for the ABR-1, if only for the fact that there is one less connection between the bridge and the guitar. The stud screws thread directly into the wood, rather than into a stud, and it is a fine and great-sounding system. And I like the way the saddles sit in an ABR-1 better - it just looks like a more direct and solid connection to the guitar. The fact that it depends on string tension for everything to stay put just makes it all the better, for me.

Nashvilles seem over-built to me. I can't prove it, but I think that bridge somehow "simplifies" the whole vibration system of the instrument - seems to me to take out all the nice overtones and emphasize the fundamental. This may be a good thing for some players, but I know it isn't a good thing for others. Straight into a blackface? I'd think you'd want the ABR-1.

One possible but probably controversial illustration of the difference: I think the ABR-1 bridge (along with the neck joint) is largely what creates the difference in sound between a Historic Les Paul and a Standard. Having seen lots of really great Standards, and having experienced huge differences in sound among Historics, it's hard for me to believe that the purportedly different grades of wood are the major reason for that. (It's probably all pretty good wood, with the largest differences mostly being in weight, which may or may not make for predictable differences in the quality of the sound. It's a point that's hard to be sure about.) But my point won't make sense at all unless you are willing to consider the possibility, as I believe is the case, that Historics have one kind of sound, kind of a broad, basic category of sound with variations within that category, and that the Standards have another kind of basic sound. My take on the basic difference is this: the Historics tend to have more overtones in the note, for better or for worse, while the Standards tend to give more fundamental. I could be totally wrong - and certainly it can't really be this simple - but I think it's the bridges that make this difference.

(... sometimes I wonder if an ABR-1 bridge, because of the way it seems to work with the acoustic qualities of the guitar, lets great wood sound great, and lets bad wood sound bad, whereas the more focused sound of the Nashville somehow evens things out, and makes all kinds of different wood sound sort of the same ... and I also wonder if the bland, very "electric" sound of Gibson's stock pickups, regardless of type, isn't similarly to the advantage of mediocre wood, or doesn't somehow flatten out the variations and compensate for less-than-perfect tonewoods that acoustically sensitive pickups might be wasted on ... but then I remember to take a breath and I start to feel better again ... !)

A well-made semi-hollow guitar with an ABR-1 (and Lollars, no less)? Does it get better than that?

If the bridge is located properly, you won't need the (slightly) larger range of adjustment that the Nashville has. The two great guitar repairmen I know have both told me about Nashville-to-ABR-1 conversions they have done; according to them, the guitar usually sounds better once the ABR-1 is fitted, and there are no intonation problems.

Just my thoughts on it. Whichever way you go, you are sure to end up with a fine guitar. Don't see a lot of Heritage guitars in my neck of the woods, but the ones that pass through the local shops are always really nice.

[Quill]

I think you are completely right about the manufacturing advantages of the Nashville. Claims were made about an improvement ... didn't say for whom, though ...

And I will be happy to tell you all about the Callaham! How patient are you? I'm pretty slow; the Callaham's been sitting on my table for over a month now .... But before I rescue it from its status as an ornament and put it to work, I need to set myself up to record before-and-after tracks. The bridge issue has been a sore point with me for years, and I need to convince myself of the real result, one way or the other. But it means sorting out mics and A/D interfaces and recording software ... you know how it is ...

I have a spare Nashville, my incomplete collection of ABR-1s and my calipers in front of me - yes, I have gone that far off the deep end on this issue - and I can tell you that the Nashville and the Callaham have the same dimension at the closest points on a line running from post hole to post hole. So, theoretically, you could put a Nashville onto ABR-1 posts, if you needed to, and probably vice versa. There's <ahem> a lot of play in Nashville posts, as they sit in their studs, so there is some flexibility there ... anyway I tried it on my 335 when swapping pickups, and with a little persuadin', it did sort of fit. Didn't try it with strings on - wasn't the moment for that. One thing at a time!

Oddly - and I'll leave it to you to decide what's really odd about all this inspectin' 'n speculatin'- is that the other ABR-1s are a different size along that line. Here's the measure - having a little trouble seeing the Vernier at this late hour so these numbers are at least +/- .005":

2002 Gibson ABR-1: 2.725"
Pigtail ABR-1: 2.725"
Callaham ABR-1: 2.760"
Nashville: 2.755"

... enough to make me think that neither the Pigtail nor the Gibson would fit onto Nashville posts. (Enough to make you think you're conversing with a crazy man? I wouldn't blame you!)

One more observation, and I'll leave this craziness until I have the Callaham on the guitar and the tracks recorded, proving that either it's better or it isn't. When I lightly drop the Nashville onto a hard tabletop, it goes "thunk" - almost "thud", as though it were soft. Of course it isn't. But when I drop the Callaham the very same way - it feels a bit heavier than the Nashville! - it makes a nice, crisp "tap". It sounds musical already! And the Pigtail, machined from aircraft-grade aluminum, goes "tinggggg..." Sadly, its brilliant and beautiful-minded maker has gone to his Maker, and his fine parts can be had no more.