Unpopular opinions on gear

[sakeido]

I guess it's just how I play but I've never had issues hitting the fine tuners with my picking hand, which is probably why I have no preference between all the styles.

Obviously it's related to technique. My first guitar was a tune-o-matic and all I played for 10 years, finally tried an OFR and realized it wasn't gonna work... and there was no point in learning, because double lockers do absolutely nothing interesting while ruining the sound of the guitar and being a total pain to look after. It also had a giant block heel so those don't bother me in the slightest but people whine about them on here incessantly.

Everyone is so worried about what's "best" that they completely lose the plot.

There is no "best" trem, there are tons of trems with various pros and cons and depending on resources and context and experience and preference, one could be more desirable to a particular player.

Same for just about everything.

Actually, there is a best answer... A well set up Gotoh 510 does all the not-stupid trem things fine. It's just an old Fender Strat trem, but better. Probably why they are throwing those things on absolutely everything these days.

 

[Matt08642]

A well set up Gotoh 510 does all the not-stupid trem things fine. It's just an old Fender Strat trem, but better. Probably why they are throwing those things on absolutely everything these days.

I think they throw the 510/American Deluxe 2 point trem style in guitars to make them more appealing because people seem to think that:

double lockers do absolutely nothing interesting while ruining the sound of the guitar and being a total pain to look after.

A floating 510/2 Point is a Floyd Rose without the things that make a Floyd Rose useful. You have all the hassle of balancing the string/spring tension when changing string gauges or tunings, with none of the advantages a Floyd offers

You mention it being "well set up", which would imply the person who has it is doing things like making sure the nut is cut right for the gauge being used and lubed, making sure the fulcrum points on the trem are lubed, stretching the strings after changing them, etc. Which is all just the same work you'd put in to a Floyd to make it do it's thing, except you have the massive advantage of a locking nut that takes away a lot of the finer setup work that people don't generally have the tools to do/don't want to do themselves.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Actually, there is a best answer... A well set up Gotoh 510 does all the not-stupid trem things fine. It's just an old Fender Strat trem, but better. Probably why they are throwing those things on absolutely everything these days.

Yeah, but like, the stupid stuff is the fun stuff.

Besides, the bridge has little bearing on stability, it's the other end that makes the big difference, which is why the simple locking nut has remained so unchanged and so ubiquitous for the last half century.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

That's my thing; when I see a floating trem, I don't think subtlety. I think "what can I get away with without my strings breaking" lol

 

[MAJ Meadows SF]

That's my thing; when I see a floating trem, I don't think subtlety. I think "what can I get away with without my strings breaking" lol

EXACTLY! Subtle is the recessed TOM. It's barely there, does it's job, and is super comfy. I hate setting up floating tremolos but damnit are they a blast to screw around with. I actually don't have a problem with any bridges anymore; they all have a purpose. As long as they intonate and don't have unfinished metal/sharp edges (which most of the quality ones do not) then I'm a go.

I just hate pickup rings. The look, the rubbing of my thumb on them, blegh. But again, they serve a purpose.

 

[sakeido]

I think they throw the 510/American Deluxe 2 point trem style in guitars to make them more appealing because people seem to think that:

People want flat bridges. Can't argue that. Look at every company's new product offerings, all the bridges are flat unless you're messing around with vintage inspired instruments.. like Gibson still using old, sky high TOMs, Jackson still doing the 80s hair metal thing, or Vai playing the Original Edge because he always played them.

Hipshot came around and pushed out the TOM. A 510 is basically a floating hipshot, that does all the tasteful trem stuff, and none of the dumb bullshit that's been played out since 1992.

A floating 510/2 Point is a Floyd Rose without the things that make a Floyd Rose useful.

there's nothing that makes a Floyd useful except for it being the absolute fastest way to make people go "oh this guy sounds like that other guy, except worse" because you aren't better than EVH, Dime, Vai or even Herman Li.

All that stuff you listed applies equally to basically any guitar, with or without trem.. lubing a guitar? That's a job you do like twice a decade. Or never, in the case of nuts, because any decent one is self-lubricating. But not a locking nut, of course. The quickest way to get a new guitarist to abandon playing forever is to buy them a double locking trem. 98% chance they'll never touch the guitar again when the first string change comes up. At least a Gotoh you just feed normal ball ends in through the back.

 

[Matt08642]

People want flat bridges. Can't argue that. Look at every company's new product offerings, all the bridges are flat unless you're messing around with vintage inspired instruments.. like Gibson still using old, sky high TOMs, Jackson still doing the 80s hair metal thing, or Vai playing the Original Edge because he always played them.

So what you've said here is "Aside from all the non-flat bridges out there that people like and buy instruments for, people want flat bridges". I'm people and I find any Floyd variation to be sufficiently flat because I'm not windmilling my arm around to play every note and bashing my hands on stuff.

What say you of a 510 with the bar in? It's no longer flat, it has a big honking bar in the way.

Hipshot came around and pushed out the TOM. A 510 is basically a floating hipshot, that does all the tasteful trem stuff, and none of the dumb bullshit that's been played out since 1992.

I'd argue recessed TOMs like the TonePros stuff you'd see on ESP/Jackson 20 years ago pushed the traditional TOM setup. Hipshot bridges are basically just fixed Fender bridges/The same basic design but sold at a higher price point, and people still grind down the corners of the lowest saddles because they're pointy.

there's nothing that makes a Floyd useful except for it being the absolute fastest way to make people go "oh this guy sounds like that other guy, except worse" because you aren't better than EVH, Dime, Vai or even Herman Li.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the moment you have a double locking system you're lifting the guitar up by the bar and kicking it across the stage. What if I told you that you could be ~tasteful~ with a double locking set up by showing restraint and simply not doing constant divebombs, with the added bonus of guaranteed tuning stability?

lubing a guitar? That's a job you do like twice a decade. Or never, in the case of nuts, because any decent one is self-lubricating.

Self-lubricating nuts will only go so far, and putting a bit of graphite on the nut (even if you do only do it once every 5 years) is a massive benefit to reduce friction. Again, I say this as someone who has guitars with Graphtech Tusq XL nuts.

The quickest way to get a new guitarist to abandon playing forever is to buy them a double locking trem. 98% chance they'll never touch the guitar again when the first string change comes up. At least a Gotoh you just feed normal ball ends in through the back.

I mean, people get the simplest guitars possible and still have issues that make them want to stop playing, like:

- Sharp fret ends
- Poor fretwork
- Poorly fitting hardware
- Bad electronics
- Poorly cut nut (Even if it's self lubricating!)

So I guess if you really want to you can say a double locking trem could be on that list, but once again *any* floating trem will have these same issues on that tier of guitar, and if it's a higher tier it will likely have a better trem and work so again, *shrug*

 

[StevenC]

People who complain about TOMs are just stupid

Hipshot bridges are just bad

If you think Floyds are scary it's because no one taught you to use it and you weren't curious enough to find out

 

[Demiurge]

If you think Floyds are scary it's because no one taught you to use it and you weren't curious enough to find out

Floating trems are like single coil pickups and solid state amps: they can be great when designed & built well, but too many players encounter cheap-shit versions of them when they're new and it can skew their perception going forward.

 

[TedEH]

too many players encounter cheap-shit versions of them when they're new and it can skew their perception going forward

This is me with strats in general. My first electric was a no-name import strat copy, and it made it really hard to not see other basic-looking strats as if they're all the same.

 

[sakeido]

What say you of a 510 with the bar in? It's no longer flat, it has a big honking bar in the way.

What was that about not windmilling your arm around, again? At what point did I say the entire front face of the guitar needed to be flat? The part where the side of your hand rests should be flat. That's the modern, ergonomic way. This is literally why any modern guitar design uses a flat bridge. I'm not a man alone on an island here, not even close.

I'd argue recessed TOMs like the TonePros stuff you'd see on ESP/Jackson 20 years ago pushed the traditional TOM setup. Hipshot bridges are basically just fixed Fender bridges/The same basic design but sold at a higher price point, and people still grind down the corners of the lowest saddles because they're pointy.

My SLSMG just turned 15 and wasn't a recessed TOM. It was an exceptional guitar with amazing fretwork but the TOM was kicked up so far above the body I can't go back to it anymore. SL2HT, not recessed... the neck angle was a bit lower than vintage TOM setups but it still sat fully above the face of the guitar. The truly recessed bridge was a custom shop option that not many people picked.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the moment you have a double locking system you're lifting the guitar up by the bar and kicking it across the stage. What if I told you that you could be ~tasteful~ with a double locking set up by showing restraint and simply not doing constant divebombs, with the added bonus of guaranteed tuning stability?

The "tasteful" stuff, ah yes, the stuff you can do on a Gotoh 510? Any guitar with name brand locking tuners will stay in tune just fine. Really don't see too many people out there complaining about their Petrucci sigs not holding tune, do you?

People who complain about TOMs are just stupid

Hipshot bridges are just bad

If you think Floyds are scary it's because no one taught you to use it and you weren't curious enough to find out

TOMs are just fine, I was stoked to see Nolly use one on his sig model... but he still had the good sense to push it down into the face of the guitar because why wouldn't you? Unless you're playing old man guitars, all the bridges are recessed into the face of the guitar these days. Keep the ergonomics current.

Floyds aren't scary, they're stupid. Big difference. These poor abandoned double lockers I'm talkin about, I fix them for my friends.. so they can flip them for fixed bridges.

 

[hensh!n]

Gibson is the Apple Products of music.

Hey now, contrary to popular belief, Apple actually innovates. They're not just relying on designs that were made 40 years ago. But the same can be said for a lot of technology (albeit to differing degrees).

To be fair, I'm not sure how much "innovation" one should expect from a guitar design. Guitars are often products of their time. And Gibson is an example of a brand that fans don't want to change, Fender is another. Although we arguably see better examples of Fender trying to incorporate modern sensibilities (e.g., Noiseless Single Coils) over Gibson. Though perhaps this could be the result of striking the right balance of classic designs with modern features. I've seen Gibson go off the deep end more than a few times, which may suggest they're experimental R&D department or misunderstanding their target audience.

 

[hensh!n]

Unpopular opinion. People don't actually like real guitar tones. Real guitar tones have bass and treble in them. Stop Low and High passing literally everything. Everyone is basically afraid of low end these days. Yes, your tone is thin and shitty. You're overloading the input of the amp, high and low passing everything, have almost no gain on it, play with your strings slammed against the fretboard buzzing out with thin strings and are picking it as hard as you can, but it's the amps/guitar's fault. lol. Low end has energy in it, which is why your tone doesn't have any.

It depends on the context. Guitar by itself? Sure. Guitar in a mix? Maybe not.

Also, it is worth noting that even if you aren't high and low passing everything, your front of house probably is. I do recall some major artists talking about this as well.

There's also a difference between what sounds good on it's own and what sounds good in a mix. But it's all subjective anyways and ultimately depends on how important bass is in your band. Most of my favorite Guitar & Bass duos have less crossover between their instruments.

Let the guitar be the guitar (i.e., without sub lows), let the bass be the bass (i.e., with deep lows and very little high frequency content or dirt). The same concept applies to the Kick Drum and Bass.

 

[budda]

The bridge issue is solved with just buy a les paul

 

[budda]

Hey now, contrary to popular belief, Apple actually innovates. They're not just relying on designs that were made 40 years ago. But the same can be said for a lot of technology (albeit to differing degrees).

To be fair, I'm not sure how much "innovation" one should expect from a guitar design. Guitars are often products of their time. And Gibson is an example of a brand that fans don't want to change, Fender is another. Although we arguably see better examples of Fender trying to incorporate modern sensibilities (e.g., Noiseless Single Coils) over Gibson. Though perhaps this could be the result of striking the right balance of classic designs with modern features. I've seen Gibson go off the deep end more than a few times, which may suggest they're experimental R&D department or misunderstanding their target audience.

Gibson gets shit for all their changes. Also, if you want weird Gibsons thats why the mod shop exists.

 

[drb]

The bridge issue is solved with just buy a les paul

True innovators with the objectively best sounding bridge ever made, the ToM - Nolly approved.

 

[hensh!n]

Gibson gets shit for all their changes. Also, if you want weird Gibsons thats why the mod shop exists.

Yeah, I suppose it's not what their market wants. I remember my old guitar player ripping them whenever they'd try to add some "modern" feature.

"Just make it exactly the same way and I'll buy it. Don't change anything."

 

[STRHelvete]

Hey now, contrary to popular belief, Apple actually innovates. They're not just relying on designs that were made 40 years ago. But the same can be said for a lot of technology (albeit to differing degrees).

To be fair, I'm not sure how much "innovation" one should expect from a guitar design. Guitars are often products of their time. And Gibson is an example of a brand that fans don't want to change, Fender is another. Although we arguably see better examples of Fender trying to incorporate modern sensibilities (e.g., Noiseless Single Coils) over Gibson. Though perhaps this could be the result of striking the right balance of classic designs with modern features. I've seen Gibson go off the deep end more than a few times, which may suggest they're experimental R&D department or misunderstanding their target audience.

If memory serves, the Henry J. era of Gibson was when they did wacky shit because the company was going under and they were throwing anything at the wall hoping something would stick. They were then bought out by their current company. That was the last time they got crazy with stuff...and of course Gibson fans hated everything because it wasn't the exact same old shit

 

[StevenC]

Keep the ergonomics current.

This is literal gibberish.

 

[Kyle Jordan]

Sorry if to long.
I'm gonna start a band called 'Paragraphs' lol. sorry. TLDR below;

I'm just saying people should make their tone how they actually like it first and foremost, then if there's to much low end in the mix cut some out from the mixer/daw etc, not from the rig if at all possible. Sometimes it's best to cut from the rig but I'd argue not usually. If you want low end your tone should have low end in it.
- Make the tone you like best first then adjust from there. Don't think about the mix or how it'll translate. That comes later. Do not sclupt tone with the mix in mind at first.
- The guitar does take the entire specturm for the most part. People can have their big fat overloaded tone and make it translate well too.

- I look at capturing with a mic or recording etc as capturing what was already created, rather than trying to recreate what was created and thinned out, then using a plugin to try adding it back in etc. If the basic's are done right then there's no need. LP/HP are better reserved for PA/recording application, imo.- By cutting before tracking it free's up headroom but the tone just isn't there to begin with if you want big fat tone, but even then it becomes a levels game. - All I'm saying is try not to cut anything at the rig itself (if at all possible) other than extremes maybe). Example; Cut the lows to clean up things but then want it back in the mix = bad. Don't cut lows and don't want as much in the mix = better. It's easier to subtract what's there than to add something that's not.

- What people don't usually realize or know is that even though you can't hear certain frequencies in a tone that they're still there once you cut out some lows, but if you already cut them and don't hear them then they usually aren't even there. The slopes of Eq's and stuff like that still affect the entire spectrum, so low end affects high end and entire signal at the same time etc regardless of what the eq graph or meters say. - Even if you cut the low end after the rig the high frequencies/notes are still left with some of the 'weight' imparted by that low end, even after it's cut out. If it's cut out first it just isn't there, even in the high end. - Example, if you mess with high string notes and adjust the low end on the amp you can hear it affect the high notes, there's a weight there to the note. If you cut it out the weight isn't there. You want that weight to still be there for the high notes but maybe not for the low notes is normal. That's why cutting after the rig/core tone can be better. If you want thin djenty binky tones then it may not matter much, but if you want a fat blues solo tone or thick lead tone maybe don't cut so much out. - People can try adjusting their high end and low end using the opposite control to get a better feel for their amp and what's happening to the tone as an experiment. - All that said, sometimes LP/HP can be great when used as a mix level utility in a rig and not as a tone shaper. It kills me to see all these mix ready IR's just killing the lows and high with steep LP/HP filters obviously on them at time of capture etc. When you compare that to a real mic without it you don't get that extreme roll off. That's either due to LP/HP being abused or lack of mic ability to pickup the frequency, bad amp level during capture etc. - Think about it. If the goal is to capture a real speaker cab then you want all the crap with it too just like the real thing. Making idealized versions of things should be for personal convenience and project specific tasks, not stock in the box. If you include the junk then cut it out it's better than to cut it out and not include it to begin with because cutting if first affects things you don't want cut as well. This is why people with Axe FX or big rack rig like me using eq's can get away with it more though if used properly and in the right location in the chain. I guess that's really more what I'm getting at is using LP/HP as level correction than tone shaping. What I keep seeing is people without thinking just slapping them on there. What I keep hearing is thin binky tones with no wieght behind them no matter what amp or modeller used. It just destroys it imo.

tldr.
Don't cut frequencys you still want to hear is the gist of it, but also realize when you cut lows you're also cutting highs too, even if the Eq and meters say you're not.



Probably. I like mix ready tones even if they must have LP/HP on them. I can see some working for almost every application but man put the low end in there. I will admit there is a balance or sweet spot between guitar./rig and DAW/PA input. Once it's dialed in it should work for basically every application with very minimal tweaking regardless of fat or thin tone. Obviously AxeFx has these tools to achieve this the proper way, but I really think most people are doing it wrong, tbh. because they don't usually think like audio engineers.
- As you probably know, the idea with mix ready is for a studio or venue to be able to calibrate the system to unity gain, then when you plug in that's pretty much the best it's going to get minus a few quick balancing tweeks here and there. If someone is calibrating their tone around a unity gain concept then by all means HP/LP to hearts content, but if you're just playing your rig then make it sound the best you can by itself and let the enginner worry about translating it to a mix. If you like big fat flubby overlaoded Rectos' then go for it but don't thin it out and expect fat like you never cut it out to begin with. - Each stage is critical (as you obviously know). The rig stage of the tone is where the tone happens, not the mixing etc. I know there's different approaches as well.

tldr;
Make the rig and tone sound and respond how you want then mix afterwards it is basiclaly all I'm saying. If you're an engineer or know stuff about gain staging, Eq, etc then mess around with mix ready tone or else it could make your tone worse.
The easiest way to explain it is the same reason nobody should LP/HP everything right in the front of the signal chain. Doing so can quickly kill tone.

Unpopular opinion:

This might be the best post made this year.