Tune-O-Matic on archtop?

[Innerurge1]

This may be a stupid question, but I am curious...
Why do a lot of archtops not have tune-o-matic bridges?

[JimBobWay]

Many archtops (mine for instance) were built before the tune-o-matic was invented or popularized. Archtops with floating bridges were adjusted by manually moving the bridge. fyi

[randyc]

In addition to the previous comment, I'm reminded of the repetitive line from "Fiddler on the Roof": TRADITION !

From the aspect of coupling the string vibration to the top, there is probably little difference between the two. Most adjustable bridges, just like the TOM, use steel screws which transmit the vibration from bridge to top, so much of the coupling mechanism is identical for both cases. Wood bridges have some inherent damping qualities but TOM bridges also tend to dampen, since they are comprised of several parts that are not rigidly connected.

The wooden bridges look prettier, to my mind. It may be simply coincidence, but of all the guitars that I own (and have owned), the most perfectly intonated one - anywhere on the neck - is an L-5 with TOM bridge.

cheers,
randyc

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by Innerurge1

This may be a stupid question, but I am curious...
Why do a lot of archtops not have tune-o-matic bridges?

I dont know, but ...

... is the tune-o-matic maybe more necessary on a guitar that typically uses lighter gauge strings and needs more fine-tuning of the intonation?

... is the tune-o-matic a more cost effective option for the manufacturer than a properly made wooden bridge?

I've played 12-52 or 12-50 strings on archtops for many years now and never felt the need for a tune-o-matic style bridge. I also think they look too "hi-tech" on an archtop - just my opinion

[Meggy]

It might be a fairly small difference, but I think there probably is some difference in sound quality. Maybe a TOM is a bit heavier, which might tend to inhibit the transfer of string vibration to the top somewhat. On the other hand, they seem to work perfectly well on many archtops. I do agree with the comments about wood bridges looking better though, and I won't be changing mine for a TOM any time soon. I've never really had any issues with intonation from a wood bridge personally.

[randyc]

Originally Posted by Meggy

Maybe a TOM is a bit heavier, which might tend to inhibit the transfer of string vibration to the top somewhat

Good point !

[RSY]

Originally Posted by JimBobWay

Many archtops (mine for instance) were built before the tune-o-matic was invented or popularized. Archtops with floating bridges were adjusted by manually moving the bridge. fyi

That's true. However, the Tune-O-Matic has been around awhile, since 1954. I have a 1966 ES-125TDC and I think at that point in time the compensated wood bridges were used as cost-saving items. Of course, I could be wrong.

Scott

[Hoopskidoodle]

Originally Posted by Innerurge1

This may be a stupid question, but I am curious...
Why do a lot of archtops not have tune-o-matic bridges?

I had a tune-o-matic type bridge on my guitar (with rollers no less.) I dumped it for a compensated ebony one when I got rid of the original Bigsby tailpiece in favor of a trapeze tailpiece. I don't know if the difference in tone is primarily due to the new tailpiece or the bridge (I suspect that it's cumulative.) But, It sounds quite a bit more acoustically resonant. I'm far from a guitar expert (or an expert in the propagation of sound waves of various materials, for that matter) but a wood bridge intuitively seems like it would transmit a warmer jazzier sound than metal-on-metal.

[zonedout245]

I think a wooden bridge would give a better unplugged sound. Less "clang". But I'm afraid of bending on a wooden bridge. I feel like it might break.

[Hoopskidoodle]

Originally Posted by zonedout245

I think a wooden bridge would give a better unplugged sound. Less "clang". But I'm afraid of bending on a wooden bridge. I feel like it might break.

I highly doubt that would happen... unless you're doing some insane bends. Of course, if you're using the guitar primarily to play "bendy" music, as opposed to jazz, you're probably better off with a tune-o-matic w/ roller-saddles... and much thinner strings than the flat-wound suspension bridge cables typical of jazz-boxes; I'm thinking of something Gretsch-like.

As for me, I have a Tele for that sort of thing.

Edit: Of course this is purely subjective, but I think that my archtop sounds better unplugged and plugged in with the wooden bridge.

[TAHOEAGLE]

Most high end custom archtops have wood bridges on them. I checked the book "Hand Made Hand Played" and found very few Tune-o-matics on the most expensive archtops in this book. This book's Guitporn!
I think that Tune-o-matics on archtops make the guitar sound brighter, but the weight deadens the sound on a true acoustic archtop. Semi-hollowbodies with the sustain block in them rely on the pickups for sound, not the top's vibrations, so they respond differently to putting on a wood bridge.
Wood bridges are light, transmitting the vibration, and the string rests on a wood saddle instead of steel, mellowing the sound. Intonation setting is the reason for a compensated bridge. Tune-o-matics intonation can be dialed in better.
I'll bet that you'll break the string before you could ever break a wood bridge by bending a note.
So the chioce depends on the sound you're looking for, and the kind of guitar you have as to which bridge is right.