How to increase a guitar's treble response?

[jmat]

Go up half a gauge on the treble E.

[Jon S.]

I thought I'd return, after a year, to report on where I ended up.

Everything else I tried was on the margins. But I finally copped a new Boss GE-7 active graphic equalizer pedal, threw it into my Fishman Loudbox Artist's effects loop, and it is truly amazing.

I don't know how I played guitar for so long and didn't acquire one of these pedals long ago. Its uses are virtually limitless. Especially for amplified acoustic and acoustic-electric guitar, it's a game-changer.

BTW, if you research this pedal, you'll find some complaints about hiss. This is with the vintage ones. Boss made some changes and the new ones are dead silent.

[rick-slo]

Just picking a little closer to the bridge will increase the treble response more than most any other thing.

[phavriluk]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Since treble range is mostly from the B and high E strings, which are normally plain steel, which in reality is very much the same across all the brands of strings....changing the type or alloy of your strings is not likely to do anything.

Changing string gage, however, to heavier B and E strings will give you better treble response.

Also picking closer to the neck and farther from the bridge helps. Pick shape, thickness, material all change the tone too.

There's nothing magical about the integrity of a set of strings - - - mix and match won't bring in the guitar police. I'd change the two solid strings to a heavier gauge and see what happens (I've done it myself, and on my guitar it seemed to do what I wanted).

It sounds reasonable to me that there's not to be any kind of great awakening, but maybe the results will be noticeable and positive.

[Henning]

Originally Posted by redir

I'm still confused...

Me too. I can't see any point of having bridge pins at all. Well no other then cosmetics of course. Altering of the tone perhaps, yes.

[TheGITM]

An old thread, I see. I didn't read all of the replies, but did anyone suggest that you could shave the treble side of the bridge and raise the saddle height to create a little more break angle?

That should provide a little more treble response.

[conecaster]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

The added mass of the hardwood top works against treble response acoustically, and there's not a lot you can do about that.

agreed, highs respond to less mass and density.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Just picking a little closer to the bridge will increase the treble response more than most any other thing.

That's among the obvious and easy responses that's well worth repeating for emphasis. But it affects more than just the treble and, for me, didn't achieve my ends.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by TheGITM

An old thread, I see. I didn't read all of the replies, but did anyone suggest that you could shave the treble side of the bridge and raise the saddle height to create a little more break angle?

That should provide a little more treble response.

These days, I'm barely wanting to shave my face!

[Jon S.]

All in all, I'm thrilled with the Boss GE-7 in my Fishman Loudbox's effects loop. It is both melodious and versatile. For example, I can use it to emulate an electric sitar-like tone, too, which for me is practical as for my past albums I've had to borrow one but now I think I can simply go direct with my Tele.

[Alan Carruth]

TheGITM wrote:
"...did anyone suggest that you could shave the treble side of the bridge and raise the saddle height to create a little more break angle?"

Shaving the treble side of the bridge will reduce the mass and could possibly improve the treble response. So could shaving the bass side, for the same reason.

Putting in a taller saddle will alter the sound, but it's not because of the change in break angle. Once you have 'enough' break angle (15-20 degrees or so) so that the string won't hop off the top or roll/slide sideways as it vibrates it will transmit all of the string vibration to the top.

Raising the strings higher off the top increases the leverage of tension on the top. This increases the force of two signals that are produced as the string vibrates: the tension change, and the high pitched 'zip tone' signal, which is a tension/compression wave within the material of the string.

The 'tension change' signal rocks the bridge toward the neck twice for every full cycle of the string vibration. The actual amplitude of this is much smaller than the vertical pull of the string tugging the top up and down like a loudspeaker. It's also harder to rock the bridge than pull it up or push it down: we build guitar tops to resist the static torque of the strings, after all. Finally, the bridge rocking signal pulls one half of the top 'up' and pushes the other half 'down', so a lot of whatever air movement is produced simply cancels out. The tension change signal enhances the output of the even numbered partials of the string a bit, changing the timbre of the guitar, but it doesn't add any power. I'll note that guitars with tailpieces, such as archtops, don't 'see' that tension change signal, since the tension change is taken up by the tailpiece. If that was the major sound producer, archtops should sound an octave lower than flat tops with the same strings. Do they?

The 'zip' signal drives the bridge in the same way as the tension signal. However, it's at a high pitch, often around the 7th or 8th partial ('overtone') of the string. It has no necessary pitch relationship to the note the string is tuned to: it's pitch depends on the material and construction of the string and not the pitch it's tuned to, so it's often dissonant. This makes it easy to hear, even when it's not very powerful, so I suspect that's most of what you hear when the saddle is raised.

Raising the saddle higher doesn't actually produce more sound, it just changes the timbre. I spent a bunch of time a few years ago doing the experiments, and it all hangs together and makes sense physically. Changing the break angle by itself, without changing the string height off the top, made no measurable or audible change in the sound. Changing the string height did.

[TheGITM]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

Raising the saddle higher doesn't actually produce more sound, it just changes the timbre. I spent a bunch of time a few years ago doing the experiments, and it all hangs together and makes sense physically. Changing the break angle by itself, without changing the string height off the top, made no measurable or audible change in the sound. Changing the string height did.

Lots of good info in this, Alan. Thanks for the well-reasoned explanation!

[Henning]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

TheGITM wrote:
"Putting in a taller saddle will alter the sound, but it's not because of the change in break angle. Once you have 'enough' break angle (15-20 degrees or so) so that the string won't hop off the top or roll/slide sideways as it vibrates it will transmit all of the string vibration to the top.

Raising the strings higher off the top increases the leverage of tension on the top. This increases the force of two signals that are produced as the string vibrates: the tension change, and the high pitched 'zip tone' signal, which is a tension/compression wave within the material of the string.

If it can be assumed that the guitar is well set-up. Altering the saddle, raising it for instance, will alter the intonation. That isn't good.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Definitely not! Though that's not the issue anyway - I'm more concerned with its tone unplugged and through the piezo on the bridge.

Do solid electric guitars like this have an acoustic sound?

[TheGITM]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Do solid electric guitars like this have an acoustic sound?

Believe it, or not, that is actually a hollow body guitar.