Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[Cuthbert]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

In my experience a kahler with the right set up stays in tune very well...almost like a double locking original floyd rose.

On the other hand, a kahler has a more mellower tone due to the fact that it's made of brass,palm muting is confortable and there is no recessed space for the spring on the bask of the guitar.

I think a Kahler 2200 series is the best choice for archtop guitars,and also the estethic is cool, while I dont like the 2300 baseplate...

[Shawn Lutz]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

It's matter of preference really. I personally think they are an eyesore and devalue any instrument that they are on. They also leave a huge ass gaping hole in the body so its not like you can change for gahler to a floyd and have it look nice without filing the hole and re-topping it.

Parts can be had easily now. Check out Paul at bigheadguitars.com he deals Gahler replacement parts.

[noodlesatf]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[ QUOTE ]
It's matter of preference really. I personally think they are an eyesore and devalue any instrument that they are on. They also leave a huge ass gaping hole in the body so its not like you can change for gahler to a floyd and have it look nice without filing the hole and re-topping it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I think the exact opposite way, because many of the same things can be said about a Floyd and the huge gaping hole it leaves behind. To me, a Kahler looks like an interesting piece of engineering, mounts simply, and doesn't fall off the guitar when you take all the stirngs off. On the other hand, a Floyd looks like an oversized, blinged out vintage trem, like someone stuck 20" chrome wheels on my guitar. With a Floyd Blows, you have TWO gaping holes to fill in, one in the back and one in the front. Don't even get me started on the fact that you can't change the string spacing, and need shims to change the saddle height. Ugg.

To each his own, I guess, but I'm tired of seeing Kahlers get a bad rap. Floyds made it big because Eddie used them. If Eddie used Kahlers, we'd all be talking about how hard it is to find parts for those crappy Floyds that devalue the old guitars.

[RobRR]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

Great discussion so far. Ive never gotten to play a Kahler, but If I can find one on eBay or where ever for cheap, Id like to pick one up and experiment with it.

[Cuthbert]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[ QUOTE ]

Funny, I think the exact opposite way, because many of the same things can be said about a Floyd and the huge gaping hole it leaves behind. To me, a Kahler looks like an interesting piece of engineering, mounts simply, and doesn't fall off the guitar when you take all the stirngs off. On the other hand, a Floyd looks like an oversized, blinged out vintage trem, like someone stuck 20" chrome wheels on my guitar. With a Floyd Blows, you have TWO gaping holes to fill in, one in the back and one in the front. Don't even get me started on the fact that you can't change the string spacing, and need shims to change the saddle height. Ugg.

To each his own, I guess, but I'm tired of seeing Kahlers get a bad rap. Floyds made it big because Eddie used them. If Eddie used Kahlers, we'd all be talking about how hard it is to find parts for those crappy Floyds that devalue the old guitars.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1...by the way I think that on a vintage Les Paul Custom a Kahler 2200 improve its appearence, and Gibson was right to offer it as the standard tremolo choice for their guitars.

By the way, I played an '86 Charvel 6 with a 2300 and I consider it far superior that the model of '87 with the Jackson locking trem, as well as the crappy licensed Floyds.

Anyway, the fact that a Kahler 2300 or 2200 is less invasive than a Floyd is evident:try to route an hardtail Strat or any other guitar with fixed brige for a Floyd and for a Kahler top mounting trem, and after look how much wood you moved...

By the way, the behind the nut locking systems just requires 4 holes.

[Shawn Lutz]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

Floyd made it big because trem stays in tune consistently. A non-recessed Floyd route is the same size as a std trem route. I only play floyded guitars and dont care for tune-o-matics or string-thrus so the route doesn't bother me at all.

As far as value goes a Floyded San Dimas Charvel or Jackson will always be worth more than one wiht a Kahler.

As I said its just a matter of player preference just as it is with pointy vs. stratheads or duncan vs. darmizio's, what works for you or whatever you prefer is all that matters.

[shreddermon]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[ QUOTE ]
Floyd made it big because trem stays in tune consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

I've never played a Kahler that stayed in tune as well as an Original Floyd. Never.

I'm sure someone will come along and tell me that I've never played a properly set-up and strung Kahler. "They just need the saddles at a proper height" or "you need to solder the ball ends", and so on. [img]/images/graemlins/eyes.gif[/img] Well all that set-up voodoo is very similar to what folks go through with a vintage trem to keep those reasonably in tune, too. So - from a tuning stability standpoint - how was the Kahler a significant advancement? It wasn't. It was only a marginal improvement.

Not saying Kahlers are junk. They aren't. A very high quality unit, without a doubt. In fact, they have some cool features.

But, from a tuning stability standpoint, they are inferior to a Floyd. Everything else is. And, IMHO, that's the bottom line as to why the Floyd continues to be successful and the Kahler wasn't.

[Cuthbert]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Floyd made it big because trem stays in tune consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1


[/ QUOTE ]

Opinable statement: tuning stability is not given by the dimensions but by the locking system(s) and the friction at the pivots.

In my experience,it it true that a proper fitted Floyd is marginally more stable than a Kahler 2300, but it is because the Floyd is double locking while the kahler just single locking and the stability at the bridge is given by the strings' ball ends, on the other hand a single locking system requires more time to tune up...

in my experience I never found Kahlers 2200 & 2300 with SERIOUS tuning problems while I found MANY cheap floyd rose copies that were a pain.

An example?My bandmate has an Ibanez RG with a low pro II and stopped to use the bar:it doesn't stay in tune AT ALL.

About the fact that kahlers went out of business, I think it was caused by the fact that the Floyd were meant from the beginning as replacement for vintage units, and in this configuration their installation was easier, but I also remember MANY top class players who always used heavily kahlers: Dave Murray and Adrian Smith,Brain May, Mustaine & Friedman, Kerry King among the others...

All of them were using bad tremolo systems? I don't think so.

[noodlesatf]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

Try doing double stop and unison bends on a Floyd. 'Nuff said.

IMHO, the biggest oversight Kahler made was not offering a lock at the bridge. If a Kahler locked at the bridge like a Floyd does, then they would be every bit as stable as a non-recessed Floyd. And for what it's worth, you can pull back further on a Kahler than you can on a non-recessed Floyd.

[Cuthbert]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the biggest oversight Kahler made was not offering a lock at the bridge.


[/ QUOTE ]

+1.

[Shawn Lutz]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

that settles it then, its "Floyd Blows" vs. "Gahler" 3pm at the flag pole, bring it biotches [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Budman68]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

[ QUOTE ]
that settles it then, its "Floyd Blows" vs. "Gahler" 3pm at the flag pole, bring it biotches [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


<font color="aqua">"oh, it's already been brought" ! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] </font>

[LesPaulCustom]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

<font color="yellow">I'll probably be beaten like a baby harp seal for this, but, here's my opinion.

I don't have a problem with Kahlers, the majority of my guitars have Kahlers.

From an engineering standpoint, I think the Kahler is much better constructed and designed as far as adjustability.

I think a Kahler sounds a little fuller to my ears, not so brittle or harsh.

I kinda like the fact that I can palm-mute as I want to on a Kahler equipped guitar and not worry about going sharp, and to me, the feel is a little better.

It's all personal preference. A Kahler was never designed to do what a Floyd will do, it's more of a subtle effect IMO. </font>

[Accept2]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

Kahler versus Floyd is alot like the old battle between Mac and the PC. One chose to allow licensing even to people who made the cheapest copies and it spread like wilfire, and brought its creater riches from liecensing fees. The other didnt allow liecensing fees, keep quality high, but had created a disadvantage with being priced high. In the end, I like both, but I would take a Kahler over a Floyd anyday of the week. In the Mac world, it will be interesting to see in a few years when PC software will actually run on a Mac using Mac OS and no emulator if they steal a chunk of PC business...........

[hgsmith]

Re: Whats so bad about Kahlers?

I love both, I find my Kahler to be a better platform for my GK3 installation. Strings stay aligned with the pickup during use.