strat vs. tele

[J J]

I guess this does matter on what kind of sounds you like comming out of your 6-stringer

 

But I like the tele's bridge pickup SO much!

 

I may consider on getting one in a couple of months. But if anyone (sorry to bring it up here insted of making my own topic) has any suggestions on any squire's then tell me (kinda poor )

[Entropy]

I build both strat and tele style guitars, and technically there are quite a few differences.

 

Let's start from the top

- The Strat has a bigger headstock than the Tele. More mass on the head means more sustain.

- The neck itself is pretty similar and varies by built or preference. The Telecaster does have an extra fret. Woo-hoo!

Come to think of it, the fretboard radius is different on the (older?) standard necks, with the Tele being flatter. 12" vs 9" off the cuff.

- The Tele body with the single cut-out offers a stronger join with the neck (somebody already said 'rock-solid'). Theoretically this also increases the soundboard, giving a richer and louder tone (providing all other variables are equal).

- The Tele bridge offers a nice chunk of metal on the butt-end of the string. It also shields the bridge pup somewhat. I would put a Tele-bridge on every guitar if I could.

- The Strat bridge has the tremolo that you either love or hate. Lots of players have their whammy-bar jammed up because its nothing but a pain in the posterior. The Hendrix-school knows how to appreciate it though, and indeed, it can add some tonal qualities to a guitar.

- The third pick-up on the strat was added basically for lack of humbucker. Who uses all five positions anyway? Three pick-ups do offer serious rewiring possibilities and hours of fun with a soldering iron. I do know some people that have access to all 7 possible combinations on their axe.

- The bridge pup on a Tele is special. It has such a characteristic sound and yet is extremely versatile.

- Somebody noted the ergonomics on the Strat, but I think you can safely discard that aspect if you play it standing up.

 

Those are about all the differences I can think up. From a historical perspective you could say that the Stratocaster was introduced as an improvement on the Tele, but the fact that both have remained in production is enough indication for their shared icon-status.

 

Although wildly popular, neither one is "superior" over many other guitars I can think of.

[Mike Gug]

Entropy wrote:

- The Strat has a bigger headstock than the Tele. More mass on the head means more sustain.

I thought it was the opposite. The greater mass of the headstock the more vibration you'd get from the headstock. That would, in turn, interfere or rob the string of it's vibration.

[Entropy]

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

Entropy wrote:

- The Strat has a bigger headstock than the Tele. More mass on the head means more sustain.

I thought it was the opposite. The greater mass of the headstock the more vibration you'd get from the headstock. That would, in turn, interfere or rob the string of it's vibration.

Its one of those topics of discussion that always has people on either side, but I am rather confident about this one.

What pulled me over the edge was an annecdote from somebody who changed the tuners on his guitar and noticed a significant improvement in sustain. His new tuners were heavier than his old ones. I did a little bit of experimenting and came to the same conclusion. The heavier the tuners, the more sustain.

You may also have seen that little gadget laying around, I believe it is called the "fatfinger".

It is effectively a weight that you clamp to your headstock to give you more sustain. Works like a charm.

 

Of course there is a difference between adding metal and adding wood for weight, but if more vibration would cause less sustain, then it would be hard to get any sound out of an accoustic axe, right?

[Mike Gug]

I don't think it's that simple. Maybe the Fat Finger thing is making a weak point, in the headstock's wood, more solid.

 

What if the headstock were rubber, yet still greater in mass and weight than the wood headstock? I think maybe your friends experience with a new set of tuners may be very similar to the effect that a Fat Finger would have. It was likely a better-constructed piece of equipment.

 

I could be TOTALLY wrong. Hell, I got a C in Physics I and II in college.

[Blue Strat]

The more rigid something is, the better it is at transfering sound waves. The larger headstock has more mass and is more rigid. However, I haven't noticed any difference in sustain between my Tele and my Strat.

[Entropy]

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

I don't think it's that simple. .

You're right, it isn't. And I stand corrected in one point, you really do want vibrations in the headstock to be minimal. Hence the Steinberger design, that got rid of the headstock all together.

 

Maybe the Fat Finger thing is making a weak point, in the headstock's wood, more solid..

Nope...it just adds weight, thus reducing vibrations.

 

What if the headstock were rubber, yet still greater in mass and weight than the wood headstock?

Two things. First, You would have a virtually vibe-free head, and thus more sustain. Second, you can bounce all over the stage, using your axe as a pogo stick.

 

I think maybe your friends experience with a new set of tuners may be very similar to the effect that a Fat Finger would have.

That was pretty much my point.

 

I could be TOTALLY wrong. Hell, I got a C in Physics I and II in college.

What's college?

[Dave da Dude]

Entropy,

Let's start from the top

- The Strat has a bigger headstock than the Tele. More mass on the head means more sustain.

bluestrat,

The more rigid something is, the better it is at transfering sound waves. The larger headstock has more mass and is more rigid. However, I haven't noticed any difference in sustain between my Tele and my Strat.

There is a basic flaw in this logic. It ass-u-mes that the headstock rigidity has anything to do with the sound of the guitar (and BTW that bigger is more rigid - only IF they are the same materials).

 

IMHO the Headstock rigiity does not have anything to do with the sound of the guitar, up to a point. The strings are stretched over the Nut, the Nut defining one end of the string (the Bridge defines the other end). The only effect the rigidity of the headstock (and tuners) has is if it is NOT rigid enough to keep the tension on the string constant. If it is AT LEAST rigid enough to keep the string tension constant, any further rigidity is superfluous. If the headstock of the Strat was not rigid enough, then it would constantly go out of tune, yet everyone that has trouble with a Strat going out of tune corrects it by "fixing" the BRIDGE, NOT the HEADSTOCK!

 

My 53.47 cents (adjusted for inflation)

 

Dave

[Blue Strat]

Originally posted by Dave th Dude:

Entropy,

Let's start from the top

- The Strat has a bigger headstock than the Tele. More mass on the head means more sustain.

bluestrat,

The more rigid something is, the better it is at transfering sound waves. The larger headstock has more mass and is more rigid. However, I haven't noticed any difference in sustain between my Tele and my Strat.

There is a basic flaw in this logic. It ass-u-mes that the headstock rigidity has anything to do with the sound of the guitar (and BTW that bigger is more rigid - only IF they are the same materials).

 

IMHO the Headstock rigiity does not have anything to do with the sound of the guitar, up to a point. The strings are stretched over the Nut, the Nut defining one end of the string (the Bridge defines the other end). The only effect the rigidity of the headstock (and tuners) has is if it is NOT rigid enough to keep the tension on the string constant. If it is AT LEAST rigid enough to keep the string tension constant, any further rigidity is superfluous. If the headstock of the Strat was not rigid enough, then it would constantly go out of tune, yet everyone that has trouble with a Strat going out of tune corrects it by "fixing" the BRIDGE, NOT the HEADSTOCK!

 

My 53.47 cents (adjusted for inflation)

 

Dave

I believe that everything on a guitar contributes to the tone produced by that instrument. This means that the body (wood type and mass), the neck (wood type, mass, type of nut material, size of the frets), hardware (tuners, bridge, saddles, pickup mounting hardware), and electronics (pots, pickups, caps, and switches) all effect the tone of the instrument. The two neck in question are of the same materials because we're talking about a Tele and a Strat; both have maple necks. Travis Bean guitars had aluminum necks and would sustain for days, or so I'm told. Very rigid stuff. I've got to ammend what I said about the heavier material being more rigid. This isn't always the case, unless it's the same material, as you already stated.

 

But hey, I'm just an electronics technician. You're the mechanical engineer.

[Mike Gug]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if the headstock were rubber, yet still greater in mass and weight than the wood headstock?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Two things. First, You would have a virtually vibe-free head, and thus more sustain. Second, you can bounce all over the stage, using your axe as a pogo stick.

 

Rubber is used in shocks/struts bushings as well as engine block mounts because of its vibration-dampening properties. I dig the pogo stick idea though.

 

I think the density of a matrial would have the greatest bearing here. And to fix inconsistancies in wood (wood occurring naturally, Mother Nature not being terribly concerned with guitars...) the Fat Finger maybe "sures up" these inconsistant spots.

 

If size and mass were the only issues, we'd see HUGE headstocks on guitars and advertisements saying, "New for 2004! 50% larger headstocks for more sustain!"

 

I took my physics courses at State Univ of NY at Geneseo. Graduated from Calif State Univ at Sacramento. Sure, I'm an idiot, but these are fine schools! They take no responsibility for my actions and ideas.

[Dave da Dude]

bluestrat,

 

It was really meant also as a life lesson. Never assume that you "KNOW" something. Make sure that you DO know it!

 

Dave

[Blue Strat]

Originally posted by Dave th Dude:

bluestrat,

 

It was really meant also as a life lesson. Never assume that you "KNOW" something. Make sure that you DO know it!

 

Dave

This is good advice. There is one thing about guitar design that I do know, and it's that the method of mounting the pickups to the guitar matters. There are lots of folks out there that say a pickguard won't make any difference in the tone of an instrument, but I say that's bull-hockey! I've heard it with my own ears. A more rigid pickguard will add brightness and clarity to a guitar. Mounting the pickups directly to the body with wood screws and hardwood or metal spacers is even more effective.

 

Think about this, and you'll see my point. The string vibrates. The pickup vibrates as well, unless it's mounted rigid. So, the more rigidly mounted the pickup is, the better it can do it's intended job. It's just another place to tweak the tone of your instrument.

 

For a Strat, if you made some aluminum stand-offs to replace your pickup mounting springs, and used a stiff 5-ply or aluminum (or even better; carbon fiber) pickguard, you'd have rigidly mounted pickups and you'd hear what your axe really sounds like.

[Guitarzan]

Originally posted by roy d:

You can purchase a metal plate that goes on the back of a strat bridge pickup from either Fralin or Callahan that gives it more of a tele sound... or Duncan makes a tele-like pickup for a strat called a twangbanger. Either solution might be a good one.

[Guitarzan]

Originally posted by roy d:

You can purchase a metal plate that goes on the back of a strat bridge pickup from either Fralin or Callahan that gives it more of a tele sound... or Duncan makes a tele-like pickup for a strat called a twangbanger. Either solution might be a good one.

i have heard of callahan (specifically tremelo blocks) i tried to find his website and no luck. does he have a new site? oh sorry for the previous post i am not awake yet

[roy d]

oops...

it isn't callahaN... it is callahaM

the website is http://www.callahamguitars.com/

 

I think sustain has more voodoo than just rigidity or density... follow those arguments to their logical end and we get the same silliness as the really big headstocks. It is a combination of a whole bunch of things including density and rigidity, stiffness and strength, etc.