wooden bridge bases: solid vs split?

**ruger9** · 06-22-2012, 09:15 PM

Are there any general opinions on the tonal differences ( if any) on solid bridge bases vs two-footed? Does it make any difference?

**rpguitar** · 06-22-2012, 09:37 PM

While I am sure that some luthiers (players even) have a preference, this is generally NOT a perceptible factor. My vote is with originality in the case of the bridge, be it two-footed or a continuous surface.

In the case of a non-original or replacement bridge, a two-footer will be easier to fit to the curvature of the top.

**Patrick2** · 06-22-2012, 10:34 PM

Antonio Strativari used a two footed brifge base. But, hey . . . what the hell did he know about tone???

**hot ford coupe** · 06-22-2012, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Antonio Strativari used a two footed brifge base. But, hey . . . what the hell did he know about tone???

He just fiddled around with the tone.

**cosmic gumbo** · 06-23-2012, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Antonio Strativari used a two footed brifge base. But, hey . . . what the hell did he know about tone???

Arco string instruments have soundposts, so it's not as relevant to archtops.

**ruger9** · 06-23-2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by rpguitar

In the case of a non-original or replacement bridge, a two-footer will be easier to fit to the curvature of the top.

Ah... that I hadn't considered. Good point.

**iim7V7IM7** · 06-23-2012, 09:04 AM

As others have already said, fit to the top's curvature is important in coupling the vibrational energy from the strings to the top. Even with a one foot design, most of the energy transfers in the region of the two-foot design. Either design fitted properly will perform similarly.

**.02$** · 06-23-2012, 09:33 AM

Two footed designs provides storage space and show more top.

**SamBooka** · 06-23-2012, 09:34 AM

Ingrams L5 book (iirc) said that in the Mid 30s gibson switched from single footed to two footed bridges because they were quicker and easier to fit to the profile of the top of the guitar.

**Jabberwocky** · 06-29-2012, 05:06 AM

A luthier's perspective: The Archtop Bridge: Feet or no feet : Guitar Accessories | Koentopp Guitars .

**ruger9** · 06-29-2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

A luthier's perspective: The Archtop Bridge: Feet or no feet : Guitar Accessories | Koentopp Guitars .

Thanks for that- great write-up. I just wish he would have tried to describe HOW DRASTIC (OR NOT) the tonal differences were. I was just about to order a solid-base bridge, now I'm re-thinking that decision based on that article. I should probably just buy one of each and see which one my ears prefer on this particular guitar.

**Patrick2** · 06-29-2012, 11:46 AM

Yeah . . . I would think if you have a concern, or think that you have a more descernable ear than most, having one of each is a real cheap way for you to test your choices.

Heritage has recently switched from a single continuous bridge base, to a two footed one on all of their arch tops. I lobbied against the move. The Super Eagles, Golden Eagles, etc., are competing with L5s Super 400s . . and dare I say Benedettos, Comins, Campellone . . . etc.. I don't recall seeing a $15.00 two footed bridge base on any of those guitars.

I am currently working with Antonio of Ultima Guitar on having him price out a custom made continuous bridge base with a compensated saddle and the bird inlay in the bridge base . . . as was done on the earlier high end Heritage arch tops. If you google Ultima Guitar, you will be impressed with their offerings.

Most of you know, that I'm a collector first and a player next. As such, I'm more about aesthetics than I am about tone . . (while not disregarding the importance of tone either). I recently had Heritage do two special custom ordered Golden Eagles for me. I sourced a beautiful bridge base from Ultima for one . . and I had Aaron Cowles hand make one for the other. I won't have that two footed bridge base on any of my arch tops other than H575s or ES 175s.

I seriously doubt that Heritage Guitar would be very happy with me for this post . . . so I will also offer this in their defense; Heritage has ALWAYS been more concerned with functionallity than they have been with aesthetics .. (which is not to say they have no concern at all about aesthetics). It is truly their belief that the two footed bridge base transfers tone better than a continuous one does. That's why they made the switch.

But, let's also look at the build costs in producing an arch top. With a two footed bridge base, you take a bridge assemble out of the box . . . slap it on the guitar and you're done with it . . it ALWAYS fit just right with no sanding or shaping required. Conversely . . a continuous bridge base will sometimes require 30 minutes or more to "shape" into perfect conformity to the arch in the arch top. Then, if it's not done with percision perfection . . either the dealer or some ass-hole like myself is going to reject the guitar because the bridge base doesn't fit perfectly . . . (well, maybe ass-hole is too harsh a word for those other than myself). Then it gets shipped back . . or there are costly secondary adjustments that need to be performed by the dealer's guitar tech . . which they then charge back to Heritage. Further to that, the center piece of wood, between the two feet, (of a two footed base) is very flexible. As your guitar's arch top might expand and retract with changes in RH and/or temp . . a two footed bridge base will flex to conform to the new contour. Ever see the ends of a continuous bridge base seem to be "curling upwards"? What do you think causes that . . . when the guitar was delivered to you new with a perfectly shaped bridge base? It's the top flexing that causes it. A continuous bridge base is just too robust to flex with the top (in the more extreme situations of RH change or top sag)

However, with all that being said . . . I still think they look like shit!

**TonyPGH** · 06-29-2012, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

With a two footed bridge base, you take a bridge assemble out of the box . . . slap it on the guitar and you're done with it . . it ALWAYS fit just right with no sanding or shaping required.[/U][/I]

Wouldn't a two-footed bridge base require some sanding as well, just not as much surface to be shaped? It still has two points of contact with the arched top of the guitar for a proper fit? I'm talking about some generic one not manufactured for a particular guitar model.

**oldane** · 06-29-2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

.... dare I say Benedettos, Comins, Campellone . . . etc.. I don't recall seeing a $15.00 two footed bridge base on any of those guitars.

Maybe not in "real life". But if you check Bob Benedettos book from the beginning of the 1990s, he actually advocates a one piece bridge and there's a photo of one vaguely reminiscent of a violin bridge with TWO FEET. Of course he put ordinary adjustable bridges with one foot on the guitars he sold. BTW, he later did a test an concluded that he could'nt detect any audible difference between the non adjustable bridge (which had two feet) and the normal adjustable one (which had one foot).

One thing I have noticed is the effect of the mass of the bridge. A denser and/or thicker bridge saddle tends to dampen high frequencies. I can hear a difference between the original quite slender saddle that came with my Painter and the Sadowsky compensated saddle I put on it which is more massive - the latter sounds "darker". The difference is subtle, though, and on an amplified guitar, it can easily be levelled out by a slight turn of the tone control.

**PTChristopher** · 06-29-2012, 01:36 PM

>>> Wouldn't a two-footed bridge base require some sanding as well, just not as much surface to be shaped?

Yes and no.

First the second part of your question:

>>> just not as much surface to be shaped?

That is really not the "feature". The advantage is that the thin section between the feet can flex and allow the feet to sit as best as they can on the top. Sometimes this works right off the shelf if the bridge is pretty close to the right shape. Sometimes the thin section between the feet is not thin enough to flex well.

>>> Wouldn't a two-footed bridge base require some sanding as well

Yes. Sometimes you do need to shape the underside of the feet. And then it is a bit of a pain since grabbing the bridge is harder and one of the feet can stray and get mis-sanded. It's not a big deal, just a touch of extra care is best.

(And of course there is the "requisite" Stewmac tool,...)

I greatly admire the guitars and business effort of Mr. Koentopp. But I also find the blog post significantly different from my own observations. I have not noticed such a significant or consistent distinction between base types at all.

It may simply be that I lack sensitivity.

Chris

**PTChristopher** · 06-29-2012, 01:41 PM

[oldane] >>> One thing I have noticed is the effect of the mass of the bridge.

In my opinion this is a very significant factor. Ebony vs. Rosewood (notably lighter) for both the base and saddle. And of course a TOM or other even heavier saddle can also be used.

And as you might expect the general difference from mass varies quite a bit.

On a ply box it varies much as you might expect - wood is woodier. Light wood more so.

On a more resonant archtop the picture gets complex and sometimes unpredictable. You can get deeper wolftones for example with a heavier bridge sometimes - which is opposite of what I would expect in general.

And some spruce tops sound more "hi-fi" with a t-o-m. I mean more highs and lows when amplified, almost slightly scooped. While a light rosewood bridge can bring out some significant midrange punch.

All in my opinion.

Chris

**mr. beaumont** · 06-29-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

I am currently working with Antonio of Ultima Guitar on having him price out a custom made continuous bridge base with a compensated saddle and the bird inlay in the bridge base . . . as was done on the earlier high end Heritage arch tops. If you google Ultima Guitar, you will be impressed with their offerings.

This is a great idea. Ultima's product is absolutely top notch.

I replaced the bidge on my 575 with an ultima bridge. The guitar actually gained volume unplugged, and the bridge looks great...it's solid as a rock, too.

**.02$** · 06-29-2012, 07:42 PM

Did not like the two foot bridge that came on my new 575 either. Have one of Antinio's bridges sitting on my amp as I wait for delivery of my pickup rings. So 30 minutes? Darker tone? I will be the judge of that.

**Patrick2** · 06-29-2012, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by TonyPGH

Wouldn't a two-footed bridge base require some sanding as well, just not as much surface to be shaped? It still has two points of contact with the arched top of the guitar for a proper fit? I'm talking about some generic one not manufactured for a particular guitar model.

LOLOL . . . yeah . . . theoretically, if a builder had only one two footed bridge base to choose from that would be the case. But, in the world of old school guitar builders . . (also read as Heritage craftsmen) Ren or Charlie would just reach into the box of bridges and look for one that fits better without further sanding. That's how it works man!!

Me?? I want a hand fitted, hand crafted continuous bridge base and saddle, sitting up proudly on my hand crafted arch top. In the words of Sir Charles Barkley, in a certain under arm deodorant commercial . . . . . . . "anything less, would be . . uncivilized".