Four Uncles Restorations ABR-1: How Does It Compare To Gibson, Faber & Callaham?!

[@SDPickups]

Joe, my ears were burning this evening and stumbled onto your demo. Its me, Dave Stephens. So I have a few things to say. First of all, yes your Nasheville setup with an adapter, completely is clouding the results. You've inserted a serious piece of metal inbetween the Four Uncles Restorations bridge, (I'm the Fourth "uncle)" I did all the reverse engineering work and it took us collectively a full two years to get it right. I DO recommend the Faber as a much cheaper alternative, but they are muddy on the lower bass strings compared to the vintage ones which are NOT muddy. I was contacted by 3 guys in Belgium who had watched my videos and also wanted to see a truly accurrate ABR1 replica being made. They know me from the "Les Paul That Isn't" video I worked on in four episodes over a year or two. My own PAF replicas, took 20+ years, and is a long story in itself, involving having a mentor in the steel industry who for 6 years analyzed all the magnetic circuit parts in every pickup Gibson made from 1937-1977, with focus on on the PAF years. On top of that the vintage magnet wire analyses done by Elektrisola Wire Corp, on piles of vintage plain enamel wire that appeared in all those pickups. What emerged was that the sound of old PAF's was happenstance and came from that period of materials technologies. All those materials were in constant flux and "improvement" over those short years. There's nobody else that did any of this kind of research to the depths that I and my mentors helped me with. None of them charged me a dime, and I was given quite an education. I was constantly doing experiments as well, learned how to do my own machining work and learned how to nickel plate and more. So, there are a zillion things about those pickups that I learned in person from the many old PAF's I've restored and played. Simple pickups for their time, DIFFICULT to decode all the materials in our time. The most difficult work of my entire life. Before this I was a graphic designer for 35 years, did 90% or all Shrapnel records album art, and was instrumental in getting EMG Pickups recognized in the world, thru my design work and ad campaigns and art. Both were my clients, I wasn't an employee. So, graphic design is a highly technical career, especially when the first Macs came out and I had to adapt from hand done analog artwork. Along the way I got back into playing electric guitar after starting in 1965 (yes I AM OLD). So along the way I got heavily into the Les Paul thing. That curiosity consumed me, when it came to the mystery of vintage Les Pauls. It started with just replacing the harnesses in cheaper Les Pauls, that made a huge difference in better sound. So, with the PAF research and deep dive into materials history, as read from the parts themselves, I turned to the hardware, bought vintage parts to listen to in person, and used my knowledge of metalurgy to figure out what all the part were made of and how they were made. Soooooo......the other 3 Uncles (they were jokingly calling me "uncle" because I'm 74 here in a month...). The more we dug into the vintage ABR1's, I managed to buy several of them that were underpriced off Ebay and listened to them all. They were GREAT. Nothing else but original ones are worth having, all the other commercial ones focused on LOOKS and never on the originals. There's a British guitar online magazine that was describing a vintage LP they were looking over, and for an experiment, they put a modern ABR1 on it and the vintage sound vanished. Didn't surprise me one bit. The bridges look simple enough, but MAN OH MAN, they AREN'T. A couple thousandths of an inch off and they buzz like hell. We made mistakes, the mold maker made mistakes too. The guys found an 80+ year old man who had been in the zinc casting industry, and he did all the alloy mixing for us. After two years they sent me a couple to try out, and thank the gods, it was a success. There are now several guys who own vintage Les Pauls now using our ABR1, because like many old bridges, the saddles wear too deep and buzz or notched off center etc. One thing about our ABR1 is that they go through a "break-in" process over weeks and months time, so demo-ing a brand new one kind of misses the point. The saddles over time make better connection, so that changes things a little. Also the Four Uncles bridge can't be used by itself, it needs brass thumbwheels and brass bridge posts, or you don't get the full deal. Your Nasheville adapter adds a big chunk of metal that will noticeably change the sound and not for the better. I have an Amos Flying V that came with cheap Nasheville bridge, sunk into a steel anchor, it limits the sound in a non-vintage sound. To solve this, you have to remove the anchors, make a hardwood plug and thread a hole to install directly into the wood, the 6-34 brass posts and threaded brass thumbwheels. I haven't found time to do that, but everyone thats done that say it improves the sound a LOT. Its really sad now, that if you buy a Gibson Les Paul, you have to spend over $3,000 before you get a real ABR1 into the wood. They put the Nasheville cheap bridges on because its CHEAP to do that. Sorry if this getting long winded, but I'm all about the details of the original PAF equipped Les Pauls, and it matters. So, your experiment falls way short, not trying to disrespect what you did, but the experiment is flawed from the start. Now there are other things to consider, your average Les Paul players knows almost nothing about vintage Les Pauls except nobody can afford one :-) Most of them are using pedal boards and the real sound of the guitars are buried in pedal noise. So, changing parts and even pickups probably won't be heard. I don't use pedals or even amps with trick switches and multiple gain channels, I use vintage amps with my Garnet "stencil" amps being a favorite, because the circuits are so simple. Simple circuit tube amps are the absolute best sounding of all, and Greenback speakers are the sound we all associate with the old Les Pauls. You know, the "Beano" thing. I worked with an audio engineer who was obsessed with that sound, and between us two, figured out how it was recorded. That tone doesn't exist in real life, it was studio ART and his guitar didn't sound like that. Thats a whole other long subject, I won't get into.... So, I did the demo video for the Four Uncles ABR1, with explanations here, and also the bridges are not mass-produced. They make barely 30 a month and sometimes take a month off, because it takes 6 hours just to make ONE, and they all have day jobs, and their own businesses such as the vetinary clinic my guy over there owns. Let me know if you have any questions, you can email me if so. My email address is at the very end of all the PAF Universe videos. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqiomKiaeqqmlZosi=5oudd5coNw7Ui66L

If anything, i heard the demo first and then read your comment. If i may say something i heard on the video your bridge as a winner. I heard the faber a close second and just heard that.... a bit more bass masking a bit of the overtones. I can understand what your saying on the owners setup... still i can hear a difference and prefer the 4 uncles bridge. Gibson and callaham sound louder and more midrange directness. Might sound appealing to some, not to me at least

[@davestephens8033]

@ You're not a vintage Les Paul guy then. Thats fine, most of us are from the generation that build those guitars, old guys. Players who demand the closest thing to an original Les Pauls are few and far between, and Gibson is incapable of making them. And it truly requires a "re-education" to understand what those guitars actually WERE vs. the Gibson corporate instant guitar builds made with low bidder parts. Its a learning curve, and its not for pedal board players. Sadly the Four Uncles ABR1 replicas are probably gone forever. It took four guys six full hours to make just ONE of them. Two of the "Uncles" have moved away, so one guy cannot make them by himself. Two years of my time doing the reverse engineering, just wasted. I did videos comparing my vintage ABR1's to the Four Uncles bridge and unless I titled each bridge in the unplugged comparisons, you'd likely not be able to tell them apart. Our bridges are now in several vintage Les Pauls, like the Mojo 'Burst and several big time celebrities who worship the old guitars now have bought them an given them thumbs up. The importance of vintage ABR1's was proven in an online magazine that had a vintage LP they were analyzing for how it sounds vs. modern junk Gibson manufacturing, did a cool experiment by replacing the original vintage ABR1 with a modern one. They said immediately the great vintage tones VANISHED, and the old guitar sounded like a new modern one. Thats been exactly my results. Plus, if I remember now, this video did NOT even have a real ABR1 posts direct into WOOD, but had a cheap converter instead, which puts a huge chunk of metal inbetween the bridges and the wood. Just was not a useful experiment. Sadly Gibson is cheating its customers by using garbage Nasheville bridges because they speed up manufacturing while giving unpleasant tone. You can't get one with an ABR! unless you're spending thousands of dollars, its a huge ripoff, and players don't even know how badly they've been cheated. If you use pedals, none of this affects you, pedals cover over everything, and is why I quit using them 22 years ago. A truly GREAT guitar should kick your butt unplugged so you actually hear the guitar. If it doesn't sing, it won't sing plugged in except with pedal tone. So, ANY Les Paul is all you need for pedal boards. Now, there are BIG benefits of fixing your Gibson to make it sound more like what all the classic rock guitar heroes used. You get immense added natural sustain, better note seperation clarity, and just better tone without pedals being needed. I did this four part documentary and How-TO series of four videos showing you real vintage Les Paul parts, and their nearest modern equivalents, and progressively swapped out the Gibson junk parts, so each video, the sound improves bit by bit. Its easy to do these things and not very expensive, but unfortunately changing a Nasheville bridge to ABR1 requires removing the cheap anchors and plugging the hole with hardwood and tapping for 6-32 brass posts (and brass thumbwheels as WERE used back then). Gibson won't even put an ABR1 on their LP's unless you're spending over $5,000, and even THOSE gutars have the same junk on them as the $2K range guitars. There are a despicable corporate suit and tie guys where dollars is more important than authenticity and quality build. So, these aren't claims and advertising fluff, this is episode 1, just follow the links to the other 3 videos. That boring '60 VOS came alive and the sustain was off the charts : kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmasiJ-hhcmCbqMsi=AC1IWkThdD_1bJ6m

I really think you are replying to someone else or you completely misread my post. I said that even before reading your first comment on this video, I heard the exact same thing you mentioned. If anything i am a vintage les paul guy. I don’t like modern gibson hardware. Don’t like potted pickups…. I did watched the 4 uncles videos and stuff and i get and hear the difference. It’s the same difference i hear when playing old vs modern guitars. @davestephens8033

[@JoePerkinsMusic]

Thank you for the comment Dave - and for all the hugely valuable information. I got intrigued by the Nashville adaptor thing being a problem for ABR-1s, so put it to the test this week - some interesting results. The tone is slightly more metallic and 'bitey' with the adaptors vs. going straight into wood, but the difference isn't massive. A bit less sizzle and a more rounded, 'vowel-like' tone with the wood threads. Made this video to show the before & after: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGmWd3qqltZnf8k

[@royalmountguitars6081]

@@davestephens8033 everything you say is correct but the adapter is not "cheap metal" if it is Royal Mount rather it is SOFT BRASS NOS. Building the correct sound of a Burst is a complex recipe if you start from a guitar that is completely "wrong to begin with". Although the 90s Standards have the reputation of being "good wood" guitars they have a totally different construction than a Burst or a good Burst replica. Starting from the general measurements, the inclination of the neck, the neck tenon which is the short type compared to the long one of the originals. The glue is entirely aliphatic, hot hide glue is not used for the fretboard and the neck-body joint. Furthermore, the inclination of the headstock is also 14 degrees instead of 17 degrees as in the originals. On pickups and wiring you are already "an authority" and you know very well that everything is wrong starting from the "metal plate" of the potentiometers up to the values ​​and pickups which are the most dissimilar from a PAF. That said (yes, I'm also verbose and spend my time analyzing guitars) a Nashville/ABR-1 adapter is a first step in modifying the sound of a "totally wrong" guitar and taking it into Burst territory. If a guy doesn't have the dexterity to make maple plugs and intends to resell his "stock" guitar in the future, the adapters are a good compromise also in terms of sound. Obviously the wrong steel or brass alloy adapters are really "junk" to my ears. This is why the more accurate Royal Mount adapters in soft brass exist. Greetings from Italy!

[@recklesstoboggan]

Callahan treble always hits me right in the tinnitus. I have Faber. I prefer it to stock. Faber really really really work to tame Gibson bridge/treble pickups that can otherwise venture into far too thin and trebly territory. But you were spot on with your points on the A4 Uncles. Wow. Everything is just in the right spot and in the right amounts. Balanced, harmonically rich, articulate, warm but not muddy or dark, sweet and chimey but not piercing anemic or thin. And here I thought I was the only one who followed Dave's in depth crazy minutiae for all these years.

[@frankwren8215]

It's very impressive how close the Faber gets to the 4U despite the massive price difference.

[@YeatzeeGuitar]

Props to you, as someone that did this exact video years ago before the four uncles existed you did a great job. Lots of work to do these I know. I've gone down the rabbit hole, and my takeaway is that the vintage ones are really better. I got to try a vintage TP and ABR on my LP and record some A/Bs, couldn't film but yeah big improvement. Worth the price and hassle? Not really, so I haven't sought one out but maybe some day.

[@scottjua]

I haven’t bothered to do the video… but I have done them all in person at home, and can confirm… vintage is where it’s at… but the cost is crazy. FU and Faber are the runners up

[@popeye089]

I owned a all the ones you tested including the 4 Uncles. I splurged and bought a true 50s abr. The four uncles is the closest I have found to the original.

[@thesjkexperience]

The guitar community thanks you for doing the hard work and presenting it so well. Ive used Faber on my LP builds that use an ABR-1 and love the Mojoaxe wrap tail the best, but you can't trust someone who prefers wrap tails anyway lol. Strats are my thing and I was thinking of building a LP with a Strat scale length. The callaham was really interesting as it tamed some of the warmth that I don't always like with short scale guitars. Thanks again!

[@martinzeleny3315]

4U really the best - only replacement saddles that matches the original ones (and i've tried like dozen or more of so called "true replicas etc. etc.") - the difference not only in tone, but also feel is massive and worth every penny...abr as well - big up for Dave and other "uncles" for doing all this!!!

[@fincito]

Nerdtastic! I actually preferred the Gibson Custom Shop bridge the most.

[@monkeybrains]

Upper mid range chirp. Haunting. Cheers Joe.

[@argocat99]

As far as internet audio allows, I prefer Faber, but four uncle is also similar, but this is my opinion. Nice comparison video

[@curtahnlund3758]

Have a 4 Uncles bridge plus the posts in my Bloomfield signature L P. Definitely an upgrade, hearing is believing😉

[@BradRocker]

Great comparsion. I have Faber, but would love to try the Four Uncles.

[@enricopallazzoofficial]

This is such a difficult to hear comparison with the KZbin compression and so on. To be honest, i couldn't hear a real difference on video BUT i do know that changing bridge affect the tone and feel of a guitar. Moving from the stock bridge is an upgrade anyway and, usually, the more you spend the more you get. I remember when i changed bridge on a Gretsch Electromatic that i had. Moving from the cheap chinese bridge to an aluminium Tru-Arc bridge made A LOT of difference in sound and, especially, feel. And the same goes for my Gibson NR Firebird when i recently upgraded from stock bridge to a proper Faber. I have one slight criticism Joe, you should have done an unplugged comparison because, in my opinion, that's where you can hear most of the differences in tone when you upgrade the hardware in a guitar. Anyway, great video as usual Joe

[@SeemoreDunkan]

Looking good Joe! Too bad the Four Uncles costs more than 4 times the price of the Faber.. over 420 USD is way too much when I can get a great bridge for around 50 USD.

[@These_go_to_eleven_1959]

Yeah to me there is no way to justify that much a increase in cost. The FABER is perfectly fine at a much lower cost and German made.

[@Notinserviceij]

​@@These_go_to_eleven_1959Chinese made

[@These_go_to_eleven_1959]

@@Notinserviceij Where did you see that Faber is MIC?

[@colmkelly5524]

Having had Callaham bridges on a number of guitars over the years they all had a high-end zing that just couldn’t be dialled out. Also it felt like they lacked dynamics, particularly noticeable when playing the open lower strings. Otherwise, Kissmystrings in Germany offer a bridge like the FourUncles made from the correct formulation of Zamak albeit milled from a billet instead of being poured and with a more modern design for about half what the FourUncles cost.

[@These_go_to_eleven_1959]

Now through the same test only with a full band accompanying you!😁 $50k says you won't be able to tell them apart! By ear alone!

[@burt2800]

You talked about the differences the bridges had in their top end but how about the low end? That's where I imagine many Les Paul players struggle.

[@jasper221176]

This week I replaced my bridge with a faber. I was shocked how the sound changed...more woody/acoustic. I have to change my playing now and the setup of my gear.

[@motoramps]

Thanks for the comparison, all of them sound clear and defined, except for the 4 uncles! Kind of dull...I have always been into Faber but the Callahan and Gibson as are right there IMHO.

[@curtahnlund3758]

Best bridge analysis I ever heard Joe.👍

[@alexdeleon7135]

This comparison was brilliant in scope. If I have my two cents, this demonstration was based on overall tonality while plugged into an amp. I have always chosen instruments for clients based on how they ring unplugged. In order to clarify, if a guitar (any model) is assembled properly it should sustain (ring) throughout the neck and body respectively. It is only after confirming this characteristic I then plug-in. Pickups can always be swapped to accommodate a particular desired amplified tone. I too favor the 50's style wiring when concerning a Les Paul. All these contenders lost any natural sustain on single notes in the higher register. The Faber had amazing note definition while chording. The Callaham produced great bite, as well as a boosted high frequency. The Four Uncles had the best high note sustain, however, the note(s) only lasted a mere 1 second longer than the other contenders. All things considered, your contrast in manufacturers was valid for amplified, vintage, tone. I look forward to your next episode with great eagerness. Cheers!

[@jimbeam-ru1my]

the thing about chasing tone is- when you first start to AB something, the tonal differences seem minor. But a few hours into the ABing process the difference seems night and day. You lose sight of how minor the difference was before you tuned your ears. This is why chasing tone never ends. There's always some minor difference in tone that you can start investigating which then becomes huge.

[@burt2800]

I've been experimenting with a Faber, Gibson and ABM full bell brass bridge lately and like the ABM a lot. You should have a look at it. However, I found I got best results by actually setting the pickup height for every bridge individually. Might that be an idea for a follow up video?

[@WillfulThinker]

Great editing and even-handed playing. I am suprised that I could differentiate between the bridges and that the Gibson sounded pretty bad, even clucky, at times. I would rank them in this order: Faber, Callaham, FU, Gibson. To me, the FU was a bit sterile, although it stood its ground with the first two, whereas the Gibson was just unacceptable.

[@sidewaysrain7609]

There's not a single tone in this video that cannot be duplicated with an EQ pedal! I don't buy into the bridge the difference you're tone is so subtle and I going to change with playing style. One particular tone is not better than the other they're just slightly different! "EQ is everything!" -Eddie Kramer

[@AdamGotheridge]

You demonstrated that extremely well. To me, it's kind of like the difference between strings being a couple days old to a week old to a couple months old, but maybe less so. Or even swapping a guitar cable can produce more difference in tone sometimes. Or maybe move a tone control and just get back to playing. That was a great demonstration though, and thanks!

[@aluminati9918]

Great nerdy vid! Only heard slight differences. Bridge is important for tone though. Upgraded from Nashville to ABR a few years back due to the old one had sunk as they do. The original choice of Zamak Zinc alloy for production likely wasn’t for tone but for ease of manufacture. Sounds good!

[@robertprice5039]

I know I am definitely not being a traditionalist, but I replaced most of the ABR-1 style bridges on most of my Gretsch Guitars with Graphtech Resomax Bridges. I couldn’t stand the buzzing of the ABR-1 bridges, and the Resomax helps the Bigsby to stay in tune a little bit better!

[@BazzyPredPop]

Great video, I really enjoyed it. I’ve been I’m been thinking about putting the trigger on a four uncles for ages. It would be fair to say that most of us won’t get to play an original not all of them were great sounding Guitars anyway, and what we do here on records has been through all sorts of other equipment beforehand. People say that if you put somebody in a room with just an amp and cab and a lead hanging out the door and play 10 Les Paul, Guitars, and ask people what their favourite les Paul sound is the actual 59 will probably come in fourth or fifth. And those guitars are made up of so many other elements, but as Dave says the bridge is another big part of it, and if you’re looking to get us Close 2 that burst Tone you do you need to include all the elements . It’s my experience that Gibson Les Paul, these days are very, but I would say rock voiced. Where original bursts were a lot, broader in their sound. So brilliant, thanks, appreciated and I think in the room, the differences are even more pronounced

[@JuddLofthouse]

I really enjoyed this post to me if am completely honest couldn’t tell much difference all sounded great to me 👍

[@These_go_to_eleven_1959]

The only one that really sounded "significantly different" was the Calliham. Clean it had a thin, pingy tone i did not care for at all.

[@kirillb6504]

Oh dude, thanks! This is exactly the same that i searching!

[@neslesman6708]

Hell, i liked the Callaham. Seemed like it did the most for the guitar's (and the pickups incidentally) natural features. I would rather get that than chase a long used tone that doesn't even capture what the guitar is capable of. The most change I ever got from a Les Paul came from the pickups BTW. That being said, a good guitarist can pull a homemade tuna can with a stick neck and rubber bands for strings and get a good sound out of it. Just sayin. Opinionated I know.

[@whoismichaelmoschos]

I would love to hear the differences acoustically.

[@jeevansingh6944]

Callaham, Faber, Four Uncles then Gibson in that order. Callaham to my ears were brighter and bell like. Sounded great clean and driven. The Faber had a bit more warmth and mids going on. Was a bit surprised at how much the Gibson lacked definition and somehow was mushy and spikey. But let's be honest these were small details in the grand scheme of things Sounded great with them all.

[@skullheadwater9839]

Can I be brutally honest without upsetting you and your extensive efforts? The difference is extremely subtle. Don't get me wrong there is a slight difference between each one, some sound almost identical and some sound ever so slightly different but not so different that you could not compensate with amp and/or guitar controls.

[@JoePerkinsMusic]

Not upsetting in the slightest - that was literally the point of the video! 🙂

[@bobzherunkle3092]

Faber! Most vintage sounding

[@steveroach4895]

I've used Faber and Callaham and to my ears, it depends on the guitar. I like them both.

[@guitarmaster50]

Gibson Custom rules!:)

[@jeremyhendricks5734]

Really fantastic vid Joe! Thank you! The overall winner for me was those four fucked up uncles. Crazy Dave wins again 😂

[@carlosalves4444]

I know this may sound silly, but My question is ,what's the benchmark to to the classic Gibson les Paul tone? So when comparing all this stuff even with your favourite guitarist is, that even with the same guitar,(Bridge &Tailpiece) amp setup etc, the live tone is still different to say the treated recorded studio tone etc, so what is the benchmark tone? if that makes sense? Its like chasing the wind a bit, there a such minor subtle differences that its almost impossible to hit the holly grail tonal target , which is so subjective anyway in my opinion.😅

[@smokestacklightning]

Faber- yes. But, those knobs! It’s a Tone issue so Knobs on your amp, modeller, 10 band equalizer pedal, compressor, can add back the hollow honk treble ringk of the vintage treble PAF pickup LP sound. Of course that’s more variables that a simple vintage ‘Paul and tube amp don’t need.

[@jacqueslapidieux3182]

Perky u beauty! Shootout of the year hands down. Scoring a 4 Uncles bridge for starters. My ears delivered the following verdict: 1. Callaham - loads of high-end and loads of low-end. Impressive, but not vintage sounding 2. 4 Uncles - most vintage sounding. Just sounds right if you got the $$$ 3. Faber - Vintage flavour, but loses some of the highs. Darkest sounding bridge here, a touch muffled, but could be the perfect bridge for my very loud but very bright sounding Epiphone Les Paul 4. Gibson - Sonically somewhat in the Callaham camp, but nothing vintage about them. Check out those peaky looking saddles, ugh! Gibson accountants have done it again. Immediately dispose of and replace with a Faber or 4 Uncs having taken delivery of your 8k Murphy Lab ultra-distressed jobbo

[@chrisdanner1173]

Great comparision! The Four Uncles sounded best by far - nice mid growl but still high end clarity. The Gibson was great too, not as defined but lively and everything was dare. The Faber sounds quite muffled/muddy und the Callaham sterile

[@cc771]

How you doing my man? I just purchased a four uncles abr-1 bridge that cost €483 and change that = to $541.56. That's a very pricey none 59 vintage bridge. Did you really here a big difference? Because I kind of kicking my ass for doing it yesterday. 😆

[@burntoutwreck]

Faber or Four Uncles for sure have it, but which one ? 🤘😎💥

[@JoePerkinsMusic]

Both great - one worth 5x what the other is. So depends if you’re after 100% vintage accuracy or affordability

[@smoochie3331]

You should do the acoustic version.

[@cc771]

Hello there my man, I have a question. I just had my four uncles abr-1 bridge installed by my luthier. Did your four uncles abr-1 bridge rattle or buzzed in the beginning? I was reading the paper work describing that it will do that at first but then go away. Just seem strange because my faber ABRH never did.

[@JoePerkinsMusic]

Mine didn’t, but I have heard of that being a problem for some people. My top E saddle does keep angling itself upwards though, so I might have to hit it with a bit of Loktite.

[@franksmith6871]

This is probably sacrilege for people like you who are chasing "original" everything, but what about designs that may improve on the original? I put a BABICZ FCH TUNE-O-MATIC (Full Contact Hardware) bridge and tailpiece on my 2018 Gibson Les Paul Tribute (non weight-relieved) guitar and it made a huge difference in sustain and tone IMO. It's also fully adjustable for string height and intonation.

[@These_go_to_eleven_1959]

What year is that Gibson ABR1 from?

[@leadstrat]

Appreciate your hard work doing this. The only thing I’m certain is all the bridges sounded very close except the Callahan. That one was terrible in comparison. The Gibson custom and Faber was bright and the four uncles was more balanced. Callahan sucked though. Big time.

[@HideyHoRangerJoe]

The Faber and the FU sound exactly the same. This says a lot when the Faber is like $70 bucks, and the FU is $500. You need to try a Cooper bridge. Those are the best. I was surprised how strong the Callaham was. The Gibson sounded the best here.

[@JONNIE_ROCKER]

I replaced my gibson bridge for a 40 year old nickel gotoh, Sounds way better. But in this test i prefer the Faber

[@nasticanasta]

..I have an Orville 1989 Fujigen LPS that puts a Gibson to shame.

[@colmkelly5524]

Listening again, the Four Uncles has noticeable less bass and highs than the others, and the mids sound softer/spongier/richer

[@Notinserviceij]

Shall we just draw what you described? It would look like a line that is just lower than whatever the starting line started at You can have less lows middle and highs That just means it's quieter Cork sniffing is funny

[@colmkelly5524]

@@Notinserviceij So you are saying that all the bridges have the exact same eq profile and if they were gain matched they would sound the same?

[@user-xo6bc7gg3l]

Ok. I see this comparison differently. Are we merely comparing bridges to determine our personal modern preferences based on what we are accustomed to hearing, or are we seeking to hear what original Les Paul Bursts actually sounded like. It should be the latter, and in doing so, have we found meaningful differences? I originally thought the all were "good" listening to the compressed and possibly EQ'd KZbin video played through my Denon receiver and good Polk Audio 2-way HiFi speakers. The Gibson and Callahan were distinctly brighter, harsher, but differences were otherwise difficult to make. Thin I switched to Klipsch ear buds and also closed ear Plantronics studio headphones. The differences were much more obvious. Again the Gibson was very bright and the Callahan was downright abrasive. Both were unbalanced and both were lacking in articulation- blurring or smearing notes and harmonics. The reason I know this is because the Faber and 4 Uncles were much more articulate. Much more. Highs rang without being harsh. Lows were distinct, clear, without over emphasis, and the mids were smooth. The hard part was determining whether the 4 Uncles were "better" or just a little different. Since the posts and wheel they sat on were different than intended its hard to be sure. The 4 Uncles in this setup were just a bit more articulate, subjectively "warmer" yet had a bit more bell-like ring with upper harmonics. We really don't have a true vintage Les Paul Burst ABR-1 for comparison, so I can't tell if the 4 Uncles is closer than the Faber. Nor was it clear whether the stop bar was zinc alloy or lightweight aluminum. That might matter. I'm nit sure the 4 Uncles bridge is enough better to justify the price. I don't have a confirmation bias as My current ABR-1 bridge is different from all of these. It is a Kluson USA ABR-1 without wires and with unnotched saddles that were notched with old 10-46 strings by tapping the string into tge brass with a small brass hammer. The stoo bar is Kluson USA's lightweight aluminum version. Summary: 1. 4 Uncles (slightly better than Faber, but pricey for all but vintage owners and R8, R9) 2. Faber (very good and my value chouce) 3. Gibson OEM (ok but, very far back from the top two) 4. Callahan (what were they thinking- msybe for metal?) I wonder his the Kluson USA ABR-1 bridge with or without proper posts and wheel would do in this comparison. It is priced a bit below Faber and above other options like Gotoh? Thanks for taking the time to make this excellent comparison video.

[@user-xo6bc7gg3l]

Forgive the typos above. KZbin is not allowing me to edit to fix them.

[@USBlues]

Now throw Pigtail into the mix.

[@jeremyhendricks5734]

Maybe Pigtail back in the day but unfortunately the quality took a nose dive after the founder passed away. I’ve got a useless aluminum bridge with uneven saddle ridges and the saddles themselves were a mess. It’s too bad cuz they used to be great.

[@willdenham]

That bridge is just way out of my range. So are his pickups. I'll have to settle for faber or whatever is on my Tokai.

[@These_go_to_eleven_1959]

I listened to this test several times and unless it is yt masking the differences i do not hear any significant improvement over the stock gibson ABR1. Ever since gibson started using brass for the saddles a few years back i do not hear the faber or caliham being that much a difference especially once the gain is turned on. Even when clean it is a waste of money to swap out if you already have a later gibson custom shop ABR1. That $509 Four uncles is definitely snake oil!!!

[@swangonzalez4797]

Just from this test....Gibson all the way. Brightest. Most aggressive. Clearest. Punchiest in a gig setting. The rest sounded muddy. If I wanted muddy I would EQ the Gibson to be muddy. BUT..... I feel the tonal differences are not worth that much money. People will hear what they want to hear, vintage this and that, because they spent a lot of money. But in a blind test, would it matter so much what the differences are? And what brand? What alloy? Much less in a band setting. Whatever differences are lost in the mix. Change guitars and amps. There you will hear major differences.

[@ScottyBrockway]

I like the Gibson the most, most balanced. The Callahan has the most vintage sound if that's what you're after, ie big low end. The Four Uncles is the third. I hate the Faber, it sounds dull and lifeless like a bridge from a 70s japanese knock off.

[@rjake61]

I bet you like the new Gibson Deluxe tuners, too…

[@ScottyBrockway]

@@rjake61 Tone Snob detected. I got some used tone for sale.

[@user-pu5sk1zc8s]

does my 2013 Gibson SG sound exactly like my 1961 Les Paul? No. does one sound better than the other? No.

[@Hi-sz9yg]

Are you still depersonalized.

[@dynamic_jameson]

Another myth on tone, tone myths are the worst.

[@cc771]

They all sounded great. It would of been nice if you had the ABM abr-1 bell brass to compare with as well.

[@JoePerkinsMusic]

Can’t afford to buy them all, unfortunately!

[@HotBadBoyMagnifico]

Gibson sounds best by a significant margin.