It's a wrap

There are 1001 reasons out there as to why people do a wrap over for their tune-o-matic + hard tail bridge assembly. Some cited added sustain & tension issues for doing so - good for them. My personal reason is depicted above; the wrap over method prevents the strings from coming into contact with the tune-o-matic bridge because the break angle is less acute. If strings come into contact with that tune-o-matic bit, there would be some funky buzzing happening which would highly likely annoy you. So, there.

Misaligned

Did a set up for one of my friend's SG & noted some string misalignments. A quick comparison between the culprit (L) & a spare (R) tune-o-matic bridge revealed misaligned string slots. Folks, we always assume a centre detent is the correct position for the slot but it also depends on the spacing at the nut as well as the hard tail. Sometimes the slots at the bridge need to compensate for those. The guitar in question is a Gibson.

Wrapover explained

People have been asking me why I wrapover my strings at the stop tail portion as seen above. Here's an overdue explanation why that happens to all my tune-o-matic type bridge, one thing's for sure though- it's not a Joe Bonamassa technical emulation. I've been doing this way before I know who JB is.

Forgive the crude illustrations but here goes (side view of guitar body at the bridge area):

• A: Guitar strings
• B: Tune-o-matic bridge
• C: Stop tail

Every time I acquire a guitar with a tune-o-matic + stop tail bridge type, I'd lower the action to suit my playing. This would mean component B would be screwed down. The immediate effect of this procedure is that A loses tension even after the instrument had been re-tuned. This is bad because the lower tension would mean the strings won't stay put at B's slotted tip; they would get dislodged from the slots if I bend or pick hard.

So to return A to its correct tension setting, I lower C- it's lowered to its lowest possible position. But take a look at what happened there- the strings come into contact with B. This causes buzzing at that spot & you don't want that to happen.

It's a simple problem, yes? The simple solution here is to employ the wrap over stringing so that the angle created from the tip of B to C would ensure strings elevation, ta da! No more contact with B. So that's why you see what you see, it's a practical need as opposed to the primary aim of adding more resonance at the bridge area. But the fact that it does is a bonus :-)

Ibanez: Halberd (Part 6)

This tune-o-matic type bridge belongs to my Ibanez Halberd; proof that even hardware for Chinese production models are out-sourced wares.

Tilt

Here's something to note; the guitars you see above are my Schecters, Omen 8 (left) & 7 (right). The neck fitting of the 8 is a leveled fitting, meaning, it sits rather flat/ flushed against the neck pocket surface of the body. We can tell because by looking at the maple between the body & fretboard materials, we observe a straight line.

This is not the case with the 7 & as you can observe from the pic, it looks inclined. Do not be alarmed because the 7 sports a tune-o-matic type bridge so the strings incline down from the bridge saddles towards the nut. The neck has to conform to this inclination, otherwise, we cannot obtain a uniform action along the neck length. I'm sharing this here because there are some wise cracks in the shops who claimed that this is a sign of poor fitting but it's definitely not so. I just feel that some old people tend to say too much & they expect us younger dweebs to believe without much questioning.

Tune-o-matic bridge: Which way round?

Some people (experienced repairmen included) would tell you to align the intonation adjustment screws of the tune-o-matic bridge facing the nut (as per above pic) which they claim is the correct way.
If you visit Gibson's homepage, you'd see the unit on the Les Paul Standard '08 with the screws facing the hard tail instead.

So which way is the right way? Both ways are acceptable, as long as the intonation is done right.