Got my NS X175!!

Walter Broes said:

Did some more A/B testing today, and it really gets awful close. They're staying for now.

Click to expand...

Hey, I just noticed the sequential years:

-1960 CE100D
-1961 Starfire III Special
-1962 X175
-1963 X175

Was that on purpose?

jcwu said:

Hey, I just noticed the sequential years:

-1960 CE100D
-1961 Starfire III Special
-1962 X175
-1963 X175

Was that on purpose?

Click to expand...

Haha, no, not on purpose. Except for this : my first Guild was the '62 X175. I love that guitar (and have used it) so much that I purposely went looking for its twin. The body is slightly bigger, deeper and heavier (thicker top and back) than the preceding years, and it took me buying (and eventually selling) a '60 X175 to find out that makes for a different playing experience and sound. Now I have a late 62 and an early 63, and they're probably as close as you can find them - the 62 has a hair more neck angle, slightly thinner neck, and a different sunburst, but otherwise, they're near identical. I got lucky with both of them, didn't pay all that much.

richly harmonic said:

Holy smokes...that looks superb!!!! Looks like a million bucks to me, especially with the Bigsby and Tru-arc. So how does that stainless steel sound, by the way?

Click to expand...

Thanks! It sounds good, the stainless has a very clean, even sound. I was tempted to think all that steel could perhaps make the trebles a little brash and spikey, but the opposite is true, it's smoother sounding than a typical tune-a-matic bridge.

The high mass and weight of that bridge really do make for a little more sustain than other bridges I've tried, and the simplicity of it makes it rattle- and buzz-free. Intonation isn't perfect, but still surprisingly good. Tim from Tru-Arc makes a compensated version of them now, and I'm thinking of getting one for my favorite old 175.

Oh you lucky basket! Very nice indeed :friendly_wink:

Ah, interesting you mentioned that. My parts-o-caster (Fender MIM 60s-style neck, PMP alder body, Wilkinson trem system/bridge) has stainless steel saddles, and as far as solid body electrics go, I'd definitely say stainless steel does sound very "sparkly and chimey, without being overly quacky". So it seems to be true for hollow bodies as well. Nice nice!

Now I'm wondering should I go for the smoothness of SS on my future-to-be Starfire? Or go for the poppier/snappier/bark--ier tone of the Al bridges? :confused-new:

Walter, by the way, did you actually get a 9.5" radius Tru-Arc bridge? (The Guild website says the fret radius of most of the NS are 9.45").
In other words, was the fret board radius of the Manhattan actually what is as displayed in the technical description? Did you get a standard height or did you have to get the Low-rider version of the bar bridge? And what was the bridge post spacing measurement?

The reason I'm asking these questions is that I'm deciding that when I do get a Starfire III, and I do plan to replace the stock TOM; I plan on getting either a Compton Aluminum or Tru-Arc Aluminum. But here are the low-downs of each:

Compton: Slightly compensated angles/curves along the bar, but I have to measure my own string spacing, gauge, pre-measuring post spacing, and so forth. Overall more customize-able. Can have either hollowed-out 'tone chamber' or regular 'solid' versions.

Tru-Arc: Straight alignment, no compensations, just the matching arc radius itself. Comes in standard or low-rider versions. String spacing is already standardized based on given radius of given guitar. Less stress on pre-measuring and less risk of "screwing-up" for initial order.

What do you think overall the differences? Advantages and disadvantages?

I got the 9.5 regular Tru-Arc, but I think you'll be better off with a 10" radius bridge. There was no need for a low rider. The Compton bridges look funny to me, I prefer the classic look of the Tru-Arc.

dhdfoster said:

I definitely hear the upper-mid honk in the reissues, as well. In fact, it's still there even after having them rewound down a bit.

Click to expand...

You guys are comparing pups with freshly gaussed pickup magnets to guitars with pickups that are 60 plus years old. The magnets on the 50's Guild's are going to be weak unless they were recently gaussed. A weak magnet is going to contribute to a weak output.

My guess is if you had a time machine to back to the 50's and ride a fresh pair of original Franz pups you'd find a little higher output and a bump up in the mids.

But wouldn't 10" be a little too flat for the 9.45 radius fret-board? So would I still be struggling with the lower E, A, as well as upper upper E, B strings (in terms of low-action comfort)? And, how is the intonation with the Tru-Arc...no need for compensation "breaks" like on a Compton or even a Bigsby Comp Bridge/Bow-tie??

Oh, and I still haven't seen the new compensated Tru-Arcs whenever I visit the site. Do I have to ask and special order it from Tim?

richly harmonic said:

But wouldn't 10" be a little too flat for the 9.45 radius fret-board? So would I still be struggling with the lower E, A, as well as upper upper E, B strings (in terms of low-action comfort)? And, how is the intonation with the Tru-Arc...no need for compensation "breaks" like on a Compton or even a Bigsby Comp Bridge/Bow-tie??

Oh, and I still haven't seen the new compensated Tru-Arcs whenever I visit the site. Do I have to ask and special order it from Tim?

Click to expand...

A difference like that would be hardly noticeable if both components were actually true to their spec i.e. the fretboard was a perfect 9.45" radius and the tru-arc was a perfect 10" radius. These are generally not perfect. For instance unless your fretboard was flecked at the factory it's likely not a perfect 9.45", it may be 10" or 9" more... or less...? If you really want to get an idea of what your fretboard radius is get a set of radius gauges, they're crazy cheap and a solid investment. The difference between 9.45" and 9.50" is non-existant. Even 9.45" and 10" would hardly register (do they even make a 10" radius tru-arc?).

Now say the company specs say 9.45" and really it's more like 8.50" and you throw something higher (say if someone made a 10" radius bridge)? You might notice it (probably not but you may). And that can happen, especially if they are using wooden sanding blocks at the factory to shape the fretboards as they get worn over time and get out of spec. My recommendation is before you drop a hundred bucks on a bridge, spend ten on a radius gauge set for piece of mind.

You can get a set of these cheap:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Guitar-Radius-Gauge-for-measuring-fingerboard-and-nut-saddle-radius-Set-of-2-/121304227112?pt=Guitar_Accessories&hash=item1c3e4b9d28

I prefer working with these type below as you can put it under the string to test the bridge saddle radius and not have to take the strings off to test the board itself:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Understring-radius-gauge-set-of-9-bridge-saddle-height-Setting-luthier-tool-/121076092890?pt=Guitar_Accessories&hash=item1c30b28fda

My X-175 was a spot on 9.5", I went with a 9.5" SS tru-arc on it and it plays like a dream. I've had a compton before. Like Walter I prefer the looks of the tru-arc and with the bridge tilted at a slight angle (also a classic look imho) I get near perfect intonation even with an unwound 3rd.

bth88 said:

You guys are comparing pups with freshly gaussed pickup magnets to guitars with pickups that are 60 plus years old. The magnets on the 50's Guild's are going to be weak unless they were recently gaussed. A weak magnet is going to contribute to a weak output.

My guess is if you had a time machine to back to the 50's and ride a fresh pair of original Franz pups you'd find a little higher output and a bump up in the mids.

Click to expand...

Well...none of the old Franz pickups I have are anywhere near "low output", they're pretty angry little pickups. They just have a midrange bump that's pitched a little higher than a typical P90, or indeed the reissue Franzes. Which makes sense, as compared to both, they're underwound. I had my reissue Franz pickups rewound a little closer to the old ones I have, and they do sound closer.

Re: 10" radius Tru-Arcs - yes, you can get them, you can get pretty much anything you want from Tim for a small upcharge. I had a 7.5 radius one with slightly narrower string spacing made for my '60 Capri, it has an unusually round fingerboard. And it's a "half low rider" too, as that guitar doesn't have a huge neck angle. You can get a lot from Tim that's not on his webpage.

Walter Broes said:

Well...none of the old Franz pickups I have are anywhere near "low output", they're pretty angry little pickups. They just have a midrange bump that's pitched a little higher than a typical P90, or indeed the reissue Franzes. Which makes sense, as compared to both, they're underwound. I had my reissue Franz pickups rewound a little closer to the old ones I have, and they do sound closer.

Re: 10" radius Tru-Arcs - yes, you can get them, you can get pretty much anything you want from Tim for a small upcharge. I had a 7.5 radius one with slightly narrower string spacing made for my '60 Capri, it has an unusually round fingerboard. And it's a "half low rider" too, as that guitar doesn't have a huge neck angle. You can get a lot from Tim that's not on his webpage.

Click to expand...

The difference between a 9.5" and 10" is so slight I would be inclined to save the money and just go with the 9.5". My X-175 was a dead on 9.5" I just went with that.

In regards to the pup output, I was throwing it out there that it's possible that a magnet loosing it's gauss over time could have an effect on output differences. I didn't mean to imply vintage pups have weak output in the general sense but that they are likely weaker to some degree than the day the magnets were first produced. If the manufacturer of the reissued pickups were 100% true to the original design and used the exact materials (hard to accomplish) you would likely see a bit more power from the reissue pickups by comparison to the old sixty something years in this case. I'd add that I think the company that made these attempted to stay very close to the original design even going the distance in the dept of esthetics's.

It looks like it would be incredibly easy to swap out the magnets in these than to go through the trouble of having them rewound. A magnet swap could be a fun DIY weekend project, for instance you could test various magnets and in particular gauss levels for higher or lower output, tone, etc.

bth88 and Walter Broes, again thanks for the quick feedback on that. Well, it looks more than likely I would just go with the 9.5" Tru-Arc from Tim, but getting those fret board gauges would indeed help a lot, as well.

By the way, Walter, when you set your bridge at a slight angle, how does this affect the alignment of the strings? Is there enough "wiggle room" in the string slots where the strings can flex to "re-align" themselves with the nut, yet still maintaining good intonation (which it sounds like you've already achieved)? Just curious how that worked. For some strange reason I thought that if the bridge was a little too angled, the strings might pop out of their slots, but apparently, that's not the case...?

Aside from that, I'm pretty much stoked on the SFIII, Newark St or vintage.

Again, thank you all for the helpful replies, experiences, advise and info. This is all surely making it more exciting getting a Guild (SFIII)!

...Now if Guild/Cordoba would just reissue the E-302 Studio thin-line hollow bodies... full hollow body, and double Florentine cutaway...and excellent Korean craftsmanship (for NS series)...or amazing American craftsmanship (for the APS) ...oh man!

It's not a problem, you don't need to slant them so much that string spacing or strings being seated properly becomes an issue.

As for a good metal bridge for these, actually, you'll be perfectly OK with a good quality Tune-a-Matic bridge. There's enough material in a TOM's saddles to get a 9.5 or 10" radius out of it, and they work great and are a lot cheaper than any of the boutique bridges. I have two vintage Hoboken Guilds set up with a TOM, and they sound and play great, and intonate as good as any guitar will intonate.

I like these a lot from Stew-Mac : http://www.stewmac.com/Hardware_and_Parts/Bridges_and_Tailpieces/Archtop_Guitar/Tune-o-matic_Bridge_For_Archtop_Guitar.html

They're Japanese manufacture, the same (more elegant than a Nashville TOM) size as a vintage ABR-1, but without the drawbacks : there's no rattling wire, and the saddles sit firmly in the base. Also, the saddle screws sit a little lower in the bridge body, so you never have the problem of the strings touching them on a Bigsby B6 equipped hollowbody.

Since we are referring to cheaper alternatives to the more expensive "boutique" bridge replacements, I'm wondering how good a Bigsby compensated aluminum bridge would be. I mean, if the Bigsby CB was used on Jerry Garcia's SFIII (or Dave Davies' one), then I'm pretty sure it is reliable enough. Does anyone know the exact radius of a Bigsby Compensated aluminum bridge?

On All Parts and other related sites, I keep seeing the description read as "15" radius". Do they mean the bottom curvature of the aluminum bridge-base (for fitting above the arch-top)? Or is that the actual radius of the saddle's curvature? I'm thinking the second reason, but I could be totally wrong. It just seems odd to me that most arch-top guitars (with 9.5 to 12" fret board radius) would use a bridge-saddle with a 15" radius (a bit too flat for the fret board I imagine). But perhaps I'm exaggerating and being too "paranoid" about radius and curvature matching.

BTW, does one have to file slots on the Bigsby Comp bridge? It seems most online stores that sell Bigsby CB require individual filing of slots. But can strings be used without the slots?

What do you think of the Bigsby aluminum bridges...good? So-so? Any thoughts on these?

Folks,

As many of you have noted, Walter's review is outstanding. And it's written by a guy for whom English is a foreign language.

hf

richly harmonic said:

Since we are referring to cheaper alternatives to the more expensive "boutique" bridge replacements, I'm wondering how good a Bigsby compensated aluminum bridge would be.

Click to expand...

I personally have no experience with them but I remember they make/made two types. One with compensated for a unwound 3rd and one for a wound. At the time I was looking the unwound version was tough to source. I also remember an issue with the radius? You might want to look into that. You could also compensate for the radius when cutting the string slots but I'd take particular care keeping them as shallow as you can on the outside strings. I think that was the genius behind the tru-arc design, it's already to go out of the box.

richly harmonic said:

BTW, does one have to file slots on the Bigsby Comp bridge? It seems most online stores that sell Bigsby CB require individual filing of slots. But can strings be used without the slots?

What do you think of the Bigsby aluminum bridges...good? So-so? Any thoughts on these?

Click to expand...

You definitely have to slot Bigsby bridges, they don't work without string slots.
It's very easy to change the radius on a Bigsby saddle, aluminium is very easy to work with. A radius gauge, some sandpaper and a file will get you there in minutes.

As for the bridges....I'm not a fan. They sound great for very twangy wound strings, but unless you use very macho string gauges, they really thin out the treble strings and can make them sound plinky and thin.
They sound a little better on a wooden base than they do on the original metal base.

They can be cool for making an overbuilt, heavy guitar a little airier sounding - but that's really the only application I've found where I like them.

Alright, looks like I'll stick with plan B, getting the Tru-Arc. Plan A was the Compton. I've already sent Tim (at Tru-Arc) an email inquiring his compensated version, and in aluminum, but no reply yet. Will keep updated.

Again, Walter, that is a fine guitar! If I had the financial (and real-estate means) to afford it, I would have an entire apartment suite filled with several different kinds of hollow body guitars. At least two or three from each brand/maker.:tears_of_joy:

...and that vintage tobacco burst is just simply luscious. I'm usually not fond of tobacco burst finishes as they appear typically "pale" or "shout-y" to my taste...but I've gotta say, that's one "Class-A" tobacco burst. :congratulatory:

Again, that's just my view. Different tastes for everyone, but Guild t-burst is way cool!

I definitely like it much better than most of the Gibson tobacco burst stuff. The Guild's t-burst just has a nice balance between black, dark brown, orange, and yellow...sort of like a warm fiery, lantern-y ambiance. The Gibson t-burst is a bit more "shouty" and "loud" and "sharper", if that makes any sense.