-
Is it? I'm not sure how violin bridges got included in this discussion (maybe because the OP included a picture of a Baroque bridge?) but violin makers are not all that interested in the weight of a bridge blank. They are more likely to drop it on the bench and listen for the "plink".
Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
It's interesting though that they used to custom-fit guitar bridges to the shape of the belly. I can see that is the sort of thing that would get dropped for cost-cutting, but for violins a perfectly accurate fit of the bridge feet on the belly is probably the single most important aspect for getting the best sound.
-
08-09-2024 03:50 AM
-
So, why don't we use maple, which is traditionally used for classical instrument bridges, like Violin, Cello etc?
"A good cello bridge is made from unfigured maple with an extremely fine growth and a very strong cellular structure"
-
I don't know much about guitar bridges but violin/cello bridges are incredibly complex. They twist and bend and move in many different ways. I can only assume there is different stuff* happening with guitars.
*highly technical term.
-
You can't say that, unless you knew the guitar before the modification! Originally Posted by Archie
Agreed, as my previous post would suggest. I hesitated about referring to the sprung vs. unsprung weight question in vehicle dynamics; I think there are parallels there. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
I have a similar luthier story, about a baroque cellist who got some work done on her old instrument, which included re-repairing 1 or 2 old cracks that had been open for a while. She wasn't really happy with the sound afterwards, until it or they opened again and the instrument sounded again like the one she had fallen in love with. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
First, that's not a baroque bridge, not even a bridge for a Stradivarius specifically. It's a (fugly, IMHO) modern bridge fitting with the 19thC-current French school. Originally Posted by telephonic
Agreed for the fitting, but what plays here too is the fact that those bridge feet and the top are delicate and under a lot of pressure.
I asked the opposite question to my violin luthier once, referring to the fact that an ebony bridge should be less of a lowpass filter. His answer was typical: it's been tried, didn't sound any better (or worse) so we're sticking to what we know works. In fact, he had made a beautiful flamed bridge for the baroque violin I bought from him, i.e. not the usual kind of maple. After about a year I went back with a list of "gripes" about sound and setup that included feedback from master players like Enrico Gatti. When I got the instrument back it had a slightly higher bridge of the same shape but made from the usual maple, plus a shim under the fingerboard. Originally Posted by GuyBoden
(the goo is rosin and traces of using mutes)
-
I've found a picture of a Koentopp Archtop guitar using a maple cello type bridge.
The Birth of a New Amati Bridge - Koentopp Guitars
Quote: Koentopp Guitars.
The Archtop Bridge: Feet or no feet - Koentopp Guitars
" For instance, if I had a guitar that was too lively and a bit scattered I might consider putting on a full footprint bridge to calm things down. One could do the opposite to make a dull sounding guitar a little more vibrant. Remember though, that the fit between the bottom of the bridge feet and the top of the guitar is probably the most crucial factor in transmitting energy from the bridge into the body of the guitar. The guitar works as a complete system and every thing that exists on the instrument must have purpose. "
-
I think I allowed myself to succumb to the trap of splitting hairs and becoming a slave to supposed scientific laws. I should know from my Hi-Fi audio experience that you need to trust your ears. I replaced all of the interconnect cabling in my high-end system from copper to silver wire. The sound became overly bright and shrill, to the point of being annoying. I heard it, my wife heard it, and my friends all heard it. My electronic engineer friends stated that, theoretically it should not make a difference as both wires passed the electrical signal, but the difference was undeniable. Originally Posted by gitman
I think the bottom line is that you cannot really predict what a change in component or part (audio equipment or instrument) is going to affect the sound until you try it.
-
Violin and archtop guitars have no comparison at all. The produce sound differently and other than f holes a completely different set up. Originally Posted by telephonic
-
No reason not to try different materials and designs for archtop bridges, IMO. It's an easily reversible, non-invasive modification, and a great way to modify tone.
Last edited by Hammertone; 08-09-2024 at 03:07 PM.
-
My Epiphone Broadway came with a Pau Ferro bridge. I am looking to brighten up the sound a little, so have purchased a Tun-O-Matic bridge for it that I am going to install this weekend. If I don't like the new sound, it is easily reversible and there are saddles available made of other materials that I can also experiment with. I also like the idea that it will probably increase the sustain.
I will report back with the results.
-
I prefer a metal ABR on my Koll Ultraglide and a backup Yamaha SA 30 since I like a hybrid sound and I use a Bigsby. The Yamaha has a 2 foot wooden base and my problem is with 13’s and the downward pressure of the Bigsby (with the tension bar) …the wooden base is caving in in the middle. I guess i have to change it to a solid base or fit a support in the middle.
Ideas?
Also on my Monteleone Eclipse…John made a larger D’Aquisto bridge base that sounded much better to me than the original thinner base (think 30’s L5). Both bases of course were full contact ebony. If I lost something in acoustic output, I gained it in full frequency warm bottom. In effect it sounded a little more like a D’Aquisto and since I have a DeArmond 1100 on it, I wasn’t concerned about a db or two less volume. It actually sweetened the guitar.
-
This foot was made by Milt Owen luthier to the stars and most notably Barnie Kessels luthier who did the work on Barneys 350 which Bruce Foreman has now. You can see the foot on the guitar now. Milt said he started this design in the '30s when he worked for RKO and had made them for Eddie Lang Scotty Moore Tal and others (did lots of work for Carol Kaye). This is the last one he made. I think he felt the foot design optimized response. He made this one for me in the late '70s and passed from cancer shortly after. Thought you might like a look
-
I've seen several models like that advertised on fleabay and elsewhere when I was looking for a full-contact bridge replacement for my Loar. The claim was that those bases are flexible enough that you don't need to adapt them to the top curvature: they just conform under pressure. Originally Posted by Rickco
That never felt right to me; if the wood is pliable enough to do that, how can it be rigid enough to transfer all frequencies?
I'm not implying this applies to the hand-made one above, of course.
-
Unless it’s an artifact of a very wide angle lens, the base appears to be asymmetric. If so, is the larger end the bass side or the treble side? I’ve never seen this before - it’s fascinating. The larger square area on one side might be an attempt to exert equal pressures (force per square area) at both ends of the bridge. Originally Posted by Rickco
I wonder if each bridge was optimized for the guitar on which it was going, since factors like top thickness and bracing designs/ location differ greatly.
-
Exactly, if you look close he put a B on one side and it was made for my 175. Im pretty sure they were made for the guitar and probably why its still on Barneys, you can see he was trying different saddles cause Milt liked macassar ebony mainly but looks like something else on their now. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
-
So is the ’B’ aka bass side the larger or smaller side? Can’t see from the pic. Originally Posted by Rickco
-
From screen measurements, the side that’s shorter from the post hole to the center end has the B on it. But the ends are out of the picture of the bottom, so I’m not certain either which end is the fatter one. It looks to me like the thinner, smaller end is the bass side. Originally Posted by Herbie
Rickko, could you please confirm? Thanks so much!
-
The arch of the top is bigger on one 15 cm way than on two 5 cm ways under the feet of the base. The the pliable part is the thinner upper part of the base that connects the feet. Originally Posted by RJVB
The base does not to have to transfer all the frequencies, only those frequencies that we have learned to need to think it is a "jazz guitar sound".
I suppose!
-
its the larger side Originally Posted by Herbie
-
So as mentioned early on in these posts, are you going for an Acoustic only response or are you plugging in and playing with a band?
As much as I can appreciate a fine acoustic Archtop tone.Other than just home or recording it’s not that practical for so many reasons.
Most of us who actually gig have since found that out and usually end up using a laminate guitar or heavy braced L-5CES Varient with a metal bridge of some sort.
So a very interesting discussion for information sake, but in the end there is no single answer.
-
So true! Despite owning two very nice carved archtops (a 16 and a 17), I still use my 24 year old 16" laminated Ibanez on almost all jazz gigs. My Eastman Jazz Elite 16 was designed for minimum feedback by Lou DelRosso (Guitars 'n Jazz ) and Eastman years ago. It has heavy parallel braces and a set KA 12 pole HW HB, and it sounds beautiful both acoustically and amplified. But it starts feeding back at significantly lower volume than my AF207 and has to be palm damped a fair amount on gigs that wouldn't make that necessary on the Ibanez. I also discovered that heavy TI Bensons further reduce the tendency to feedback on the AF while greatly improving both acoustic and amplified tone. Originally Posted by jads57
The 17" 810CE7 sounds beautiful both acoustically and through its KA floater. But feedback is even more of a problem with it than with the Jazz Elite. It's a thin top archie in the Benedetto mold, with all the good and bad that brings.
-
I may know this. Years ago, while living in Anchorage, Alaska, I had a friend who was a Yup’ik ivory carver from Hooper Bay. They carve primarily fossilized walrus ivory (a legal term, not scientific). I asked her to carve a set of bridge pins for my D-28. She roughed them out, I sanded to fit, and they made a noticeable improvement in the sound. After making several sets for people who heard my D-28, I started doing research for starting a business. The Anchorage public library had a large collection of works from the late 19th and early 20th centuries concerning ivory carving, and these included several works on musical instrument parts (nuts, saddles, bridges, and bindings). These recommendations were consistent in that the purpose for notches in nuts or saddles was to hold the string in place. Any deeper than necessary to keep the string from popping out would mute the string. So the final step after doing the guitar set-up was to sand the top arch of the nut or saddle to remove any excess material above the level required for the slot. Unless scalloping or chambering, but that is another story. Originally Posted by Marty Grass
-
Yes, though in theory that shouldn't be the case if the string is held tightly on 3 sides. The thing is of course that in practise that's never or not long the case, esp. for the lower strings that have enough momentum too wear out the walls of the slot. I think in practise there's more chance of noticeable buzz than noticeable muting, though. Originally Posted by Betz
For comparison: the strings on a classical do not typically have nut slots and their tension is too low to score the nut as usually happens on an acoustic. Some builders score the rear of the saddle for that reason, so the strings can't slide but even without a good classical has lots of volume and sustain.
-
I prefer old school ebony or rosewood for a warm tone!
-
-
I'd like to run a related question by all of you here. It has to do with the vertical angle of the bridge relative to the arched top and the strings.
If I look at the schematics that Benedetto puts out, I see that the bridge (both the foot and the saddle parts) are exactly perpendicular to the apex of the arched top. The strings come the over from the nut at one angle, they come over the saddle, and then the strings descend at a steeper angle to the tailpiece. But the effect is the the bridge comes close to bisecting that "crown" where the strings bend over the saddle. That seems to make sense.
But I also see lots of archtops out there where this isn't true - where the saddle is vertically aligned such that it's close to (or completely) perpendicular to the angle of strings coming over it from the nut. In other words, of the strings are considered level, and then the bridge is aligned so that it's perpendicular to that, rather than to the top where it sits. Apparently the bridge foot needs to compensate for this because often the guitar's arch it's sitting on may have a bit of a slope.
My brain tells me the first method (the one in the Benedetto specs) is the better one - it removes the chance that the bridge becomes tilted towards the fretboard later, and it directs most or all of the downward pressure (and vibration?) of the strings straight into the top of the guitar's arched top. But it kind of looks a bit odd when I look at it, possibly because I'm used to seeing the bridge more perpendicular to the plane of the strings.
What's the common wisdom on vertical alignment of the bridge on an archtop? I'd love to understand this better. Thanks for your thoughts!
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions