Floyd Rose Tremolo Or Not??

If you ask me: go for a floyd or no vibrato at all. A floyd allows you to do real vibrato (change pitch up and below the target note, instead of merely below and back), do all kinds of weird hendrix-like things *without* your guitar going out of tune, and allow you to do tricks like Vai's 'vibrato slide'. Learning to use/maintain it will take you 10 minutes or something, and a proper floyd will last you decades. I'd say: go for it.

What about Bigsby trem arms? I've considered putting one on an LP in the future, are they any good?

Bigsbys were big in the 60s. I don't know how they compare to Floyd Rose systems though. They look cool though. I'm not a big user of the tremolo arm, but I have a Wilkinson bridge with locking tuners. It also holds tune really well.

I am not so enthusiastic about the FR system -- as I find it bulky and overly complex from a parts count point-of-view and downright inconvenient. But I will concede that it is a good stay-in-tune solution for lower and mid-priced guitars. The floating trems on better quality instruments work as well as the Floyd Rose, are far less physically intrusive, but cost more. One of the reasons is that a locking nut (FR) is a cheaper solution than premium, locking tuners, plus good nut and string tree designs. For example, Mr. Whammy himself, Jeff Beck, generally uses a Strat with floating trem and a Wilk. roller nut and locking tuners. He has in the past used a FR-equipped guitar, but has returned to the Strat with the better quality trem.

I think the FR trems "look" cool and magical to some people in a kind of Star Wars way, but their fundamental mechanics are the same as many other two-point floating trems. All the other stuff (e.g., micro-tuning knobs) is there because it is necessary in a locking nut system. Of course, should one forget to install the whammy bar before playing, it is much easier to grab the back of a FR bridge assembly and whammy away anyway. :wink:

If you don't need/use a whammy, don't buy one -- of any type.

Musenfreund: the upper-end Yamaha Pacifica's have this combination, and they really rock. If I would buy a fatstrat, it would be one of those.

Gnease: In what way does the 'complexity and bulkiness' exactly interfere with your playing? You'll use the fine-tuners once every week, and it is no harder then normal tuners. The size hardly matters, since your hands should never be anywhere near the back of the bridge, and the extra weight is pretty much non-existent.

I don't quite agree with the statement that FR are good on lower-end guitars, usually they are made from cheaper and less reliable metal, and will be totally broken within two years. I do agree that a proper nut with locking tuners would work as well, but what is the advantage?

You don't like brigdes, don't get them indeed. If you do get one, either get one, as said above, with a GOOD nut (so it don't get stuck all the time, blrug) and locking tuners, or a FR one. Getting a normal vibrato bridge with no locking tuners is hardly useable to me (although others would disagree, I know).

Gnease: In what way does the 'complexity and bulkiness' exactly interfere with your playing? You'll use the fine-tuners once every week, and it is no harder then normal tuners. The size hardly matters, since your hands should never be anywhere near the back of the bridge, and the extra weight is pretty much non-existent.

I don't quite agree with the statement that FR are good on lower-end guitars, usually they are made from cheaper and less reliable metal, and will be totally broken within two years. I do agree that a proper nut with locking tuners would work as well, but what is the advantage?

Replacing a string. In that respect a locking nut (and thus the FR) is a total PITA. And I don't think this is a minor issue. Especially if one is performing/jamming without a backup guitar.

I'm wasn't even addressing reliability. My point about FR complexity is that it is needless, and comprises a fairly inelegant solution to the problem of staying in tune. A locking nut is not a desireable feature in any respect other than staying in tune -- and there are simpler, more effective ways without the mechanical complexity of the FR -- but, again they may cost more than a FR.

I have no issue with you liking the FR system, I simply have a different opinion from both playing and engineering standpoints. I have two guitars with trems -- a Jackson and a G&L. I never play the Jackson, and one of the primary reasons is the FR. Why? Feel and excessive trem gargle (due to a large amount of mass being located away from the pivot point).

I move my hand all around the bridge area while playing -- muting, striking strings, changing timbre, where my hand should and shouldn't be is up to me.

One question (I really don't know): Do any players known for cleaner playing (not heavily overdriven or distorted) use guitars with FR systems?

One question (I really don't know): Do any players known for cleaner playing (not heavily overdriven or distorted) use guitars with FR systems?

Highly doubt it. All players who play cleaner stuff are very gentle with the whammy, if they use it at all, and the need for locking is pretty much non-existent.
I'm wasn't even addressing reliability. My point about FR complexity is that it is needless, and comprises a fairly inelegant solution to the problem of staying in tune. A locking nut is not a desireable feature in any respect other than staying in tune -- and there are simpler, more effective ways without the mechanical complexity of the FR -- but, again they may cost more than a FR.

Well, maybe I'm being dumb, but I still don't see how that matters when playing guitar. Is it harder playing guitar when a bridge is made of 30 instead of 10 parts? All I see is that with a FR, it stays in tune, never makes playing harder for *me*, can be used to raise the pitch (which a normal trem can't) and is dead-easy to use. Changing a single string takes about 30 seconds. Way too long when you're playing, no problem between songs. If we're talking about big issues, the fact that a FR goes out of tune when a string snaps is much worse, IMHO.

Well, maybe I'm being dumb, but I still don't see how that matters when playing guitar. Is it harder playing guitar when a bridge is made of 30 instead of 10 parts? All I see is that with a FR, it stays in tune, never makes playing harder for *me*, can be used to raise the pitch (which a normal trem can't) and is dead-easy to use. Changing a single string takes about 30 seconds. Way too long when you're playing, no problem between songs. If we're talking about big issues, the fact that a FR goes out of tune when a string snaps is much worse, IMHO.

Arjen-

Old fashioned Strat trems only go down in pitch. The term "floating trem" connotes a dual fulcrum, knife-edge pivot design that is very common these days. It goes up and down in pitch. This is what Fender puts on its better Strats (except "vintage reissues"). It's what came on my 20-year-old G&L S-500. FR is a floating trem as well.

30 seconds to change a string is hyperbole (we're getting enough of that with Bush and Kerry in the states) -- that would be great time and only possible with some types of locking-post tuners. A locking nut string change means having to locate a wrench to undo/redo the nut. Most players forget this until they need to do the change. Going out of tune with string breaks is endemic to all non-lockable floating designs. (Reminds me I do have a third guitar with trem -- Steiny-type headless -- it has a bridge lock, which is very useful when a string breaks -- OHO it really does only take < minute to change a string on it.)

Number of part an issue? Several things bug me about a lots of parts: poor coupling of strings to body (tone!), reduced long-term reliability (multiple points of failure), vulnerability to damage.

Again -- I wouldn't stop anyone from buying/playing a FR. Just letting 'em know my experiences and thoughts. YMMV.

-G