LESS sustain with Faber parts? Mixed experience...

[freefrog]

Yesterday I have modified a LP whose tailpiece had already been changed for an aluminium Faber 59.

This time, I've added a pair of locking threads to the tailpiece and changed the studs with Thumbwheels for two Faber threaded steel models.

I've kept the original inserts for the studs (maybe it wasn't an inspired decision).

I'm wondering now if the axe has not LESS sustain, harmonics and resonance than with the previous zinc studs...

Anyone with the same strange experience? An explanation?

Two footnotes:

-I had ordered a Faber bridge to replace the Nashville one and they have sent me... an ABR (whose posts spacing is narrower of 1mm). I've realized this mistake while I was vainly trying to install the new bridge... So I've put back the original Nashville on the new steel studs (whose top cylindric parts above the thumbwhells are threaded, unlike the original plated zinc parts).

-Having already assembled 4 guitars and heavily modified 2 others (by digging the wood to put new pickups and custom trem units), I know the strange and unpredictable "alchemy" of guitar parts: a body and a neck which sound great separately can sound dead once screwed to each others...
I understand that it might happen with metallic parts : I've already noticed that with a heavy steel bridge on a Strat copy.

My goal in this topic is just to check is someone else has experienced the same things with Faber steel studs.

Thx for your understanding and possible answers!

 

[slapshot]

In short i find faber to be an overpriced wank

 

[ptate]

In opposition, I find them cheap and great pieces....

Installed them on two of my builds and they've been fantastic....Definitely NO problems with sustain or tone...

 

[mudfinger]

No experience with Faber parts that I'm aware of (played lotsa guitars with aftermarket parts of all kinds, some were prolly Faber bits), but your remark about the "alchemy" of a particular guitar is spot on, and that's the path to getting a particular guitar to sound its best. Find what makes it happy, and it will make you happy.

 

[freefrog]

In short i find faber to be an overpriced wank

I don't suscribe to this POV because...

-IMHO, things are never "wank" by themselves but only for those who don't need them.

-before to buy the last parts mentioned above, I had changed the tailpiece for a Faber aluminium one and had noticed a clear difference, which sounded as an improvement to my ears...

YMMV.

 

[freefrog]

Well, finally, it's ok... the frequencies have slightly changed but the guitar hasn't lost its "voice" and resonance once properly set (I just had to fine tune my bridge settings).

Surprisingly, the most "dramatic" difference comparatively with the original tone was created by the aluminium tailpiece with the stock studs and posts...

Since I've changed these studs and posts, the resonance is less... "different". Go figure...

At least the attack is more precise than before.

BTW, my feelings aren't due to a "psychoacoustic" artifact: I always record the guitars that I modify "before" and "after" then I do a frequency analysis of the tracks: the difference due to Faber parts can be seen on these screenshots. Maybe I'll post these pictures when I'll have a bit more free time...

 

[bruce bennett]

I would be most interested in "seeing" your analysis...

Personally I've never heard of this "Faber" so I can't comment on them..
But I have had similar issues with other aftermarket parts V factory stock parts.
and as always I still feel its about the "Combination" and not just the parts..

in other words IMHO it will never be a fair statment to say...

"Brand "X" parts WILL produce "X" improvement on your guitar."

its simply too broad and generalized a statment to make about any brand of parts.

and I think every builder ultimately ends up with his favorite combination of parts that he uses on each different style or design of guitar he builds.

I know I do.

 

[freefrog]

I would be most interested in "seeing" your analysis...

Personally I've never heard of this "Faber" so I can't comment on them..
But I have had similar issues with other aftermarket parts V factory stock parts.
and as always I still feel its about the "Combination" and not just the parts..

in other words IMHO it will never be a fair statment to say...

"Brand "X" parts WILL produce "X" improvement on your guitar."

its simply too broad and generalized a statment to make about any brand of parts.

and I think every builder ultimately ends up with his favorite combination of parts that he uses on each different style or design of guitar he builds.

I know I do.

The whole stuff is more than the sum of its parts = a basic principle in alchemy... and IMHO, something available for us, human beings (as individuals composed of parts or as parts of a wider whole, such as this forum right now).

Below are the screenshots that you wanted to see.

I use my basic SM57 (hence the tight low range) to capture the sound of the strings at exactly the same distance and angle. I pick the strings with the same strenght all along the neck from 0 to 12th fret. I record it with neutral EQ settings. I then analyze the tracks and ask the analyzer to "sum up" the frequencies obtained. It's not "scientific" but it appears to give consistent results:

 

[bruce bennett]

The whole stuff is more than the sum of its parts = a basic principle in alchemy... and IMHO, something available for us, human beings (as individuals composed of parts or as parts of a wider whole, such as this forum right now).

Below are the screenshots that you wanted to see.

I use my basic SM57 (hence the tight low range) to capture the sound of the strings at exactly the same distance and angle. I pick the strings with the same strenght all along the neck from 0 to 12th fret. I record it with neutral EQ settings. I then analyze the tracks and ask the analyzer to "sum up" the frequencies obtained. It's not "scientific" but it appears to give consistent results:

I find it very interesting to see that rather large gap at 2.5 K between the Faber and the Gibson..

this could account for the increase in " Precise attack" your describing..

looks like a substantial increase with the Faber V the Gibson.

I'm a bit ambigous about the lower range ( 200-600Hz) as I would rather have the Gibson profile than the Fabers. ( this range tends to = a "muddy" tonality) but not having played the guitar, I could just as easily prefer the Faber to the Gibson...

the rest of the range is pretty typical.. you could see that much change from one Gibson part to another.

Have you ever done such a test? just between several Gibson parts? it would be very interesting to check the "consistency" of the stock Gibson parts.

 

[freefrog]

I'm a bit ambigous about the lower range ( 200-600Hz) as I would rather have the Gibson profile than the Fabers. ( this range tends to = a "muddy" tonality) but not having played the guitar, I could just as easily prefer the Faber to the Gibson...

Well, my test miserably fails to translate the dynamic of the two hardwares: as I stack the frequencies produced along a track, it doesn't show how the various parts of the spectrum keep resonating or not. Actually, with the Faber parts, I feel the low midrange as less "insistant" (resonant) than with the zinc stuff even if the pick makes it sound louder during a short time.

Have you ever done such a test? just between several Gibson parts? it would be very interesting to check the "consistency" of the stock Gibson parts.

I've done a pair of frequency analysis comparisons between "stock" guitars in the past... but I don't know where I've stocked the related data (screenshots take many space on a hard disk so I've probably compressed them somewhere).
Reading your questions, I just clearly remember a comparison between a 1995 and a 2005 Les Pauls: the older was louder in the bass range but the "overall shape" of their spectrums was really similar.

Another thing which "strikes" me is this one (and it might appear as stupid for some readers): I've often the feeling that the "shape" of an acoustic spectrum "mimics" the physical shape of the guitar itself. For example, when there's a tailpiece and a bridge, there's often a kind of "dual resonance" in the bass range that guitars with trem units haven't. Maybe it's an intellectual artifact but I can get rid of this analogy between material structure and sonic spectrum ...