Ebony Bridge on a Gibson ES-175?

[Longways to Go]

At the risk of inciting the trolls under the bridge, and to reference the original topic, I would expect that the choice of rosewood, ebony, and Tun-o-matic must have some difference -- however small -- otherwise why make them? It's not a very different argument than fretboards made of maple, rosewood or ebony . . . if they were all the same, wouldn't they just all be the same?

On another topic, has anyone seen the movie "Troll Hunter" ? Great show . . . well worth the subtitles IMO

[oldane]

Like I wrote in another post, I actually tend to agree with Music on many of his basic points (albeit not those concerning other peoples intelligence) and with PTChris.

That said, I do in practice find there can be minor differences in sound between different bridges/bridge tops. However, while there can be a nod in this or that direction, I have not found those differencies to be consistant with material choice. Sometimes an ebony bridge has had more high overtones (is that what the ill defined word "bright" means?) than a rosewood bridge. Other times it had been the opposite. Now and then a TOM bridge has actually sounded best (whatever that is) - even acoustically.

I think that just focusing on the material as such (ebony, rosewood, bone, metal) is too narrow. I think the structure of the particular piece af wood also plays a role and since this structure is unpredictable, so will the resultant sound be. The mass of the bridge as well as the shape also plays a role in how the vibrations are transmitted to the top. Or rather which frequencies are "sucked up" by the bridge and in which quantity and which passes on to the top. I have a couple of ebony bridge tops lying around, and they all sound slightly different on the same guitar and the same bridge base.

As always with musical instruments, we end up with a myriad of variables interacting with each other in a way which is not always obvious. Ideally, one should be able to explain things in a scientific way - and believe me, I very much go for that - but due to all those factors, there always seem to be some factors which hasn't been taken into account when a test is set up. That way tests sometimes becomes less valid. Not because there is something magical beyond the laws of physics - there isn't - but because the test often leaves out something. Often we count on "everything else equal" - but often everything else isn't equal. So it's not at all black magic but there can be more to it than meets the eye.

Now, there are many myths in music which I flat out refuse to believe, because they are to little probable from a scientific point of view. Some people actually believe that the color of the plastic lining around a wire has a bearing on the sound. Likewise the kind of paper used in the wrapping of those old paper caps. That kind of myths I don't belive.

As said, I think I can hear a difference between different bridges. When I got my Painter guitar, I kept the bridge base (which was nicely fitted to the top) and tried out various bridge tops. I ended up with another ebony bridge than the one Tom Painter had provided. On my old 175, a Gotoh TOM works best for me.

But Music has a point in asking if we really could hear a difference if a blindfold test was set up with a sample size big enough to make it statistically significant. I don't know. I have never tried it. I might or might not hear a slight difference between different bridges, but I'm sure I wouldn't be able to determine the material of the bridge in such a test.

The late British classical clarinettist Jack Brymer wrote a book on clarinets. On the subject of reed ligatures he said: "If one ligature produces a better sound - for good reasons or none at all - then that's the one to use". That is also my approach to guitars. As much as I can, I try to put things into a scientific framework but I also know that there are factors and interactions which we don't always think of.

[Para]

Scientific or unscientific, imaginary or not I don't give a damn, I replaced the TOM's on 2 of my guitars with wooden bridges, one Rosewood one Ebony because I prefer the sound, which to me is definitely different.

[dortmundjazzguitar]

I have to confess myself extremely tired of anti-gear and "time on the instrument" comments on this forum... it's a gear forum!! It's like an atheist on a religious forum no? Seems pointless (and moralistic) to me (although I can agree too much focus on gear is a bad thing, which is even quite uncommon here).

comparing the gear section to a religious forum is actually not a bad description

[Klatu]

I would expect that the choice of rosewood, ebony, and Tun-o-matic must have some difference -- however small -- otherwise why make them? It's not a very different argument than fretboards made of maple, rosewood or ebony . . . if they were all the same, wouldn't they just all be the same?

I've heard tests done on bridge saddle material that demonstrate a clear difference in tone between softer materials like wood and ultra hard materials such as ivory. As far as the bridge debate in the archtop community, I would suggest that it is the bridge material that makes contact with the strings that is the variable which affects sound.

That said, I have heard differences between TOM bridges where metal contacts the strings and wood saddles where the contact point is soft organic material. On the other hand, I doubt I would hear a difference between a rosewood saddle and its ebony equivalent.

As to why bridges and saddles would be made with such variety of wood materials, I posit that their purpose is aesthetic. I want my bridge and saddle to match my fingerboard and tailpiece whenever possible. For example, I wouldn't be interested in installing an ebony bridge on my vintage Epiphones because they all employ rosewood fingerboards.

[D.G.]

I have found that when changing parts on a guitar, the difference may take time to manifest itself to my hearing/touch, i.e. the difference may be very subtle. This is why I find the idea of blindfold hearing tests to be a crude measurement at best, useful only for very broad differences.

Here's a bit of woo: if the name on the headstock of a solidbody doesn't say "Fender" I tend to get dissatisfied with the sound and feel of the guitar and eventually sell it. But I happily swap pickups out on my Fenders to Fralins and Lollars. I owned a G&L Asat with the MFD pickups and I loved the sound of it, but it didn't say "Fender"on the headstock, so eventually I traded it for a Fender tele which I eventually traded for an Eastman archtop And I just bought a new Fender tele (made in Mexico, but that doesn't bother me) and am putting Lollar pickups into it. Sometimes I think I keep the music instrument industry in business just by myself