-
If I have a bottomed bridge (cannot adjust it any lower) and it doesn't make sense to do a neck reset, is it possible to just have a shorter bridge made? Pic attached to get an idea of current break angle from tailpiece. I've read that this can cause intonation problems but it seems that as long as I have enough angle between the tailpiece and bridge it should be OK.
-
05-08-2014 10:42 PM
-
Spook,
I can't offer any help on this, but I'm looking forward to the comments.
I really don't understand how break angle could affect intonation??
Why isn't a neck reset feasible?
Cheers, Ron
-
How about shaving the saddle from the bottom? I usually just put a file in the vise and rub the bottom of the saddle on it back and forth. If it needs a lot, try a bench grinder first to get some rough progress, then smooth it out on the file.
-
This could be a relatively simple issue to resolve. But, before I offer any advise . . how is the action now? How does the guitar play? Do you need to lower the action? What is actually your concern? If you do need to alter it . . you won't need to have a new bridge made. You'll just need to have the saddle taken down a bit from the bottom end. Intonation is a non issue.
However, if the bridge has been adjusted this low to compensate for a problematic neck angle . . . well then, that's a whole different matter.
-
Not nearly enough info here to be somewhat definitive, but what the heck,...
>>> If I have a bottomed bridge (cannot adjust it any lower) and it doesn't make sense to do a neck reset,
As already asked: What observations and measurements drive the "doesn't make sense to do a neck reset" statement?
In the meantime, assuming the guitar does not need a reset:
>>> is it possible to just have a shorter bridge made?
Yes. But it is also possible to adjust the existing bridge. If the action only needs top go slightly lower, then one can cut away the bottom of the bridge where the thumbwheels are. You want to cut away a bit more (like 1mm or slightly more) than needed to allow some seasonal adjustment if needed.
For example, you may cut 1.5mm away under the wheels and .5mm away in the area (still on the bottom) between the wheels.
>>> Pic attached to get an idea of current break angle from tailpiece.
The break angle looks fine. MEASURE STUFF, it is so much easier with actual info.
If the break angle gets below about 7 degrees, then you may (but very likely won't) start to notice a sound difference.
>>> I've read that this can cause intonation problems
I have read that Hillary Clinton had an alien baby shortly after a UFO crashed in Arkansas in 1993.
>>> but it seems that as long as I have enough angle between the tailpiece and bridge it should be OK.,
No bearing on intonation, but yes "enough" break angle is all you need. More than enough (which is around 7 degrees, depending on string gauge and your playing style) makes no difference - despite endless web-twaddle to the contrary.
Less than enough will usually have no noticeable effect. But sometimes you can have trouble with the bridge moving if you play oddly hard, and rarely you can actually hear some sound difference if the break angle gets crazy-low.
All in my opinion. Best of luck with this.
Chris
-
Also, the base is getting on the lower end of "normal", while the bridge is on the taller end of normal.
Thus, my thoughts to do the adjustments to the bridge.
-
Dead easy.
What PTC2 said above, or:
- confirm the post-to-post measurement - this is usually a standard width.
- buy another ebony bridge w/matching post spacing - easy to find on the web, pretty cheap.
- go to town on the second bridge top piece - grind/file/sand as required
Now you'll have TWO bridge top pieces - one for winter and one for summer, since changes in action are often seasonal.
-
I have a collection of bridge saddles I've cut to different heights. While all my current guitars work well with standard-height tops, back when I used to play vintage guitars I frequently had to use a cut-down saddle to get an acceptable action:
Danny W.
-
- In terms of current playability, bottomed out ends up being just about right and the action is fine
- It doesn't make sense to do a neck reset on a new $850 guitar when there isn't someone local to do it. Donating it to a charitable thrift shop for the deduction would be close financially, less trouble, and more satisfying.
- Not sure what to measure but why should that delay the proceedings? Converted from the 32nd's and 64th's that my measuring tools are in just because.
Fretboard above the top: 19mm
Distance from start of fretboard to bridge: 161.1mm
Height of bridge: 24.2mm
Interesting that on another guitar just like this one the height of the bridge is 3mm higher but so is the fretboard above the top and that bridge is not bottomed. I have a spare bridge. Going to see how that fits.
Looks like this will be solvable. Very much appreciate the inputs.
And the way I heard it, it was Arkansas, 1947, a premeditated landing, and it was Hillary's mom.Last edited by Spook410; 05-09-2014 at 03:48 AM.
-
>>> - In terms of current playability, bottomed out ends up being just about right and the action is fine
OK, so taking 1.0 to 1.5 mm off the bottom of the bridge under the wheels will get you some adjustment capability.
>>>- It doesn't make sense to do a neck reset on a new $850 guitar when there isn't someone local to do it. Donating it to a charitable thrift shop for the deduction would be close financially, less trouble, and more satisfying.
I was wondering more about the dimensional observations. But yeah, a reset costs a great deal, and it is a low income operation for the luthier even at a seemingly high cost.
>>> - Not sure what to measure
Break angle to support any discussion of it being sufficient.
>>> Height of bridge: 24.2mm
So that is toward the more modest end of very workable.
>>> And the way I heard it, it was Arkansas, 1947, a premeditated landing, and it was Hillary's mom.
I always had a feeling that the stuff "I read somewhere" about her alien baby was not accurate. Thanks for the real story.
-
Chris; got a question for ya . . .
Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
I have a very nice Super Eagle, picked up in an even up swap for my Gibson Custom Shop R4. Did the trade with Chris Forshage of Forshage Guitars down in Texas. When I received the guitar, it had a very shallow bridge saddle. It had to be cranked up so high on the posts, that it leaned dramatically forward, towards the head stock. I ordered a new saddle from Bill Gagnon. I asked him to shape a saddle out of African Blackwood to conform to a 12" radius finger board and with a height/depth of 3/4" when measured at the very center of the saddle, in between the 3rd and 4th string notches. Pretty deep, I know . . . but I intended to have Steve Hayes, a local guy take it down to appropriate dimension. When I received the saddle, I put it on the base and the action was obviously very high. I bottomed out the thumb wheels against the base and now the action is perfect to my tastes. So now the saddle is sitting on the thumb wheels . . and the thumb wheels are sitting on the base.
My question is this; would it be logical, or illogical to assume that this would provide better transfer of string vibration to the top, than just having the saddle sitting on the thumb wheels and the wheels sitting in the threads of the post? It's now almost as a one piece bridge, rather than a two piece. I would assume there would be greater resonance to the top. Would such assumptions be accurate?
I have no intentions of having the saddle cut down now, as I have no concerns about not having any further travel or adjustability to lower the action. My guitars are in a controlled environment and I never need to adjust the string height on any of my guitars.
-
>>> would it be logical, or illogical to assume that this would provide better transfer of string vibration to the top, than just having the saddle sitting on the thumb wheels and the wheels sitting in the threads of the post? It's now almost as a one piece bridge, rather than a two piece. I would assume there would be greater resonance to the top. Would such assumptions be accurate?
In my opinion there are two questions:
- Would your bottomed-out bridge configuration have less internal resonance?
And,...
- Would your bottomed-out bridge configuration transmit vibrations-in-general more successfully to the top?
I suppose one could also add:
- Is there a significant gap between the theoretical and the practical aspects of the above questions?
And,...
- Could any reduced bridge resonance and improved transmission be somehow harmful to a given beloved "tone".
So pretty complicated. And like palm wrinkles and PAF pickups, this complexity invites web-gas discovery of the paranormal - in my opinion.
My one-person's view:
- In principle, your bottomed-out thumbwheels would result in less potential resonance in the bridge assembly and better transmission of vibrations to the top.
- But the likely resonances in the bridge assembly itself would be very low in amplitude. So you may be reducing what is already miniscule.
- Transmission to the top is not just getting the energy off the bridge base, it is also propagating it throughout the top via the grain lines and the bracing - and to a lesser extent, across the top through the pithy wood between the grain lines. This whole mess, and how it is configured by the builder via wood selection, carving, and bracing would have far more affect on the total picture than some slight improvement in total energy transfer from the string to the top via, a more monolithic bridge assembly.
Or, to summarize my opinion: I think your assumptions are accurate, but of minor consequence at best, and not necessarily of any benefit.
I have fooled around a fair amount with different bridge materials including metal-weighted archtop bridges. I can hear notable differences based on the mass of the bridge and base when the mass difference is quite significant (like 2X). But I can not hear any practical difference between a more monolithic (well I suppose it is mono-wood-ic) bridge vs. our messy posts and thumbwheels configuration.
Others may have very sound opinions that they can indeed hear such a difference.
Chris
-
Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
Quite a few variables there to consider. Some of which I was already aware . . . some not. I think what I need to do, just for shits and giggles and to satisfy my own curiousity . . . is try a different saddle that does need to be elevated so that the thumb wheels are not sitting on the base. Then judge the tone of each against the other.But, then that will bring in still another element of variable. The only other saddles I have are ebony and not African Blackwood. *Supposedly* African Blackwood is considerably denser than ebony.
One thing I did experience myself . . and this is what got me to thinking about my current question to you . . is that I bought an arch top a while back and when I got it, there were plastic or nylon . . some sort of polymeric bushings inside of the holes of the saddle. They were obviously put there to snug up the fit and tolorance from a hole larger than the diameter of the post. When I discussed this with Bill Gagnon, he asked me to send him the whole bridge assembly. He made me a new saddle, notched at the spacings on the existing one and notched for .013 flat wounds. The post holes and the posts are such a snug fit, you almost have to press fit the saddle onto the posts. I did notice a considerable difference in the acoustic tone.
Thanks for the very detailed reply Chris!!
-
>>> The post holes and the posts are such a snug fit, you almost have to press fit the saddle onto the posts. I did notice a considerable difference in the acoustic tone.
Well there you introduce a rather important thing that I sloppily left out.
You hear endless talk of fitting the base to the top of the guitar, yet the fit of the bridge to the posts and wheels is ignored in web-gas-dom (as evidenced by my completely ignoring it in my flatulent post above).
But yes, absolutely agreed that a sloppy fit of the bridge to the wheels or the posts can certainly be every bit as significant a problem as a sloppy base fit to the top.
The thumbwheels can wobble a bit to accommodate some lack of true-ness-o-sity of the flat bottom of the bridge. But getting rid of as much slop as possible in the fit of the bridge to the wheels, and to the posts is worth the trouble in my opinion.
Chris
-
The Boys from Bubenreuth have done something similar in the last few years, with a brass insert inlaid into the base of their ebony bridge when they use a tune-o-matic bridge. I've tested these out and compared them with the traditional ebony bridges and there is a noticeable difference in sound. The bridge with the added metal sound fatter and darker than the all-wood ones when playing a Chancellor (which is sort of like a Gibson Legrande). Very cool idea. Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
-
I have a couple of old Silvertone/Kay guitars which need neck resets, but like you it's not worth the time or the money. (Someday I might get around to doing it myself.)
I bought wood/bone bridges from Stewart Mac and filed the saddle way down so they play OK.
STEWMAC.COM : Archtop Bridge with Bone Saddle
My pic and comment is in the middle of the page.
FWIW I like the bone saddles--nice replacement bridges for archtops.
-
Keep meaning to try these. Now I will. Thanks. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
I talked to Frank Ford of Gryphon Stringed Instruments (and frets.com) a few weeks ago regarding an active restoration of a '30 L-5. He is doing exactly as you said: carving a new bridge with a lower saddle. It's a much simpler solution than a neck reset, and he is enough of an authority for me.
-
>>> The Boys from Bubenreuth have done something similar in the last few years, with a brass insert inlaid into the base of their ebony bridge
I have one that is probably my favorite. It is about 60 to 70% copper with an ebony cap over it. Smoooooth sound. While there is no actual attack swell possible, it has that sort of incredibly unflustered response even if the right hand gets a bit sloppy.
Also, with Birchwood Casey "Brass Black" the copper looks like ebony to the point that you can barely see the seam - nice warm black.
>>> Frank Ford of Gryphon Stringed Instruments (and frets.com)
Ya know, maybe he says dopey things about making toast or dressing for Opening Day at Royal Ascot - but with regard to guitars he may be the #1 on the planet for clear thinking and zero BS advice and opinion. I have just never heard of or read a piece of even questionable advice or opinion from him. It's weird, I tell ya'.
Chris
-
Not looking for a TOM but would be interesting to play around with one of these bases. Are they available in the marketplace? Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Not really available. Originally Posted by Spook410
But they are really simple - an ebony bridge base with a channel milled out of the top, infilled with a piece of brass drilled for the height-adjustment pieces. The brass is painted black. You can sort of make it out in this picture:
-
Bob Benedetto spoke for the one piece bridge in his book from the beginning of the 1990s. Years later he did an actual A/B trial with both types - both wood - on the same instrument. He admitted that he could hear no difference. Maybe there really was no difference. Maybe it was his aging ears that prevented him from hearing the difference. But it may be safe to say that the difference is minor - lesser than many other variables (strings, pick, picking style etc.). Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
-
Chris, do you have any opinions on one-piece maple bridges for archtops?
-
>>> Chris, do you have any opinions on one-piece maple bridges for archtops?
Well, as mentioned, I do not think that the one-piece-ed-ness matters noticeably at all.
I do find that the total mass of the bridge can make an audible difference.
So if one were going for the lowest practical mass for a bridge, then a one-piece maple would get you into a fairly light bridge that was still hard enough to deal with the strings in the slots.
But maple is only a little lighter than rosewood. Plus, there is often a good amount of air involved in a traditional archtop bridge assembly. So I wonder that a one-piece maple would really be any lighter than a traditional rosewood setup. This would depend on the details of the bridge design and the total bridge height.
Also, if going for low mass, it seems to me that you could make a very workable spruce bridge with an ebony or rosewood cap on top to supply hardness at the string slots.
As for the idea that an archtop is based on classical stringed instruments so it must have a one-piece maple bridge - this is an absurd argument by analogy.
Analogies are great for illustration, but absurd for argument:
- "Her dress was blue like the sky on a clear morning."
- Therefore, because it is like a morning sky, her dress will turn gray and start to rain if a low pressure weather front comes through.
In my view, her dress will not begin to rain despite its similarity to a morning sky. Yet we hear such ass-hat application of analogy all the time with regard to guitars (and economics, national security, and even science,...).
Archtops are only in some ways similar to bowed classical instruments. They are very much not similar in many significant ways.
All in my opinion. Well, except for the dress part, it really was EXACTLY like the color of a clear morning sky.
ChrisLast edited by PTChristopher2; 05-10-2014 at 11:26 AM.
-
Maybe I'm foolish but couldn't you just take the saddle part (top half) and sand the bottom of it with a belt sander and take around 1/8"-3/16" (3-5mm) off and stick it back on? Assuming that it doesn't have brass inserts. Originally Posted by Spook410
If I have a bottomed bridge (cannot adjust it any lower) and it doesn't make sense to do a neck reset, is it possible to just have a shorter bridge made? Pic attached to get an idea of current break angle from tailpiece. I've read that this can cause intonation problems but it seems that as long as I have enough angle between the tailpiece and bridge it should be OK.
Reply With Quote
Gibson LeGrand Missing Split Diamond Inlay
Today, 11:40 AM in For Sale