-
I've been exploring the difference in tone that can be expected from swapping the bridge. It seems like something of a tune up for a factory archtop with good bones (i.e. carved top, solid woods, no pickup impeding the top). So, as I head into experimenting with this..
- It's presented by some as being very important to the sound of the instrument. Maybe on the level of string and pick choice. A little dubious of this but we'll see.
- Seems accepted that the harder the material, the brighter and louder the sound. Something softer like rosewood will be quieter, but richer. I have an 18" maple that is loud, bright, and crazy responsive. Going to try calming it down a bit.
- Hard materials for a saddle (bone, metal) will be louder/brighter. Possibly by quite a bit. I got a bone saddle bridge on Amazon for $13 with shipping. Going to try it on a mahogany that's nice but naturally subdued. Will be interesting to see how this changes both the acoustic tone and sound of the K&K pickup.
- A larger bridge footprint (e.g. D'Aquisto) may impede top movement. But may convey more energy? Flat top bridge plates are pretty large by comparison. Yea.. different top vibration model, but still.
- And while on D'Aquisto, would really like to try the wedge design. Can't find a place to buy one.
So has someone else here gone down this rabbit hole?
-
05-02-2017 12:20 PM
-
When I listen to recordings I have done with wood and metal T-O-M saddles, I can't tell the difference.
-
I think that there is a difference in tone. As you described, metal is brighter and rosewood is darker.
I prefer the T O M type bridges because they seem to hold the guitar in tune much better.
So I am sacrificing tone for tune
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I have one guitar that needed a T O M type to get compensated. And it's still fussy based on strings and humidity. However I'm thinking if I can get the saddle profile of whatever material is in play to match the T O M setting it will be close enough. I am wondering how much difference I will actually hear though.
Until I find someone that can make bridges in Oregon looks like I'll have to learn to make my own so I can try different things.
-
I changed the bridge on my Epi ES175 from a TOM to ebony, and the difference in tone was noticeable. With the TOM the guitar was bright and brittle, and I couldn't get a tone I liked no matter how I set the amp and guitar controls. With the ebony bridge, it has a fuller and mellower tone, and I like it much better. The compensated saddle intonates well enough for me. The bridge came from StewMac, and I'm sure they deliver to Oregon.
-
stew mac has these compensated bridges
theres also the vintage moveable "fret" type hofner bridge solution
and lots of indie guys have come up with their own designs...like this one with sliding saddles
(framus had something similar as well)
btw, if you have consistent intonation problems, even after adjusting the bridge/saddle position..then the problem is the neck moving..the humidity affects the bow.. and will pull your intonation out... fairly common problem these days...
cheersLast edited by neatomic; 05-02-2017 at 11:59 PM.
-
Thanks for the inputs. I have a standard non-two-foot type on the way in rosewood. Also an ebony with a bone saddle. Was hoping for a larger base than what's currently available from Stewmac/WDMusic/Amazon/Ebay et al. Was also hoping to find a D'Aquisto wedge.
-
I have tried tunomatic vs. wood on all of my archtops just to see what the difference would be. It really depends on the guitar what the effect will be - it is true that a wood bridge will sound warmer and more woody for lack of a better term and the tunomatic will sound more bell like and a little thinner. On some guitars though the tunomatic suited the guitar better, though and even though a tunomatic might objectively be described as thinner than a wood bridge I didn't find that any of the tones were brittle or not pleasing in any way. Just different. It was ultimately a hard decision for me since I like both on each guitar so I ended up just settling on keeping the original bridges on them, which so happened to mean all wood bridges, either rosewood or ebony. Using the L5 as an example, both sounded really good and there was a definite difference between them. I think the biggest difference I noticed was that the response felt different between tunomatic and wood and I usually preferred the response of the wood ones.
Has anyone tried one of those Hofner style bridges with the fret like saddles? How did they sound, being that it is a metal saddle but on a wood bridge?Last edited by rio; 05-03-2017 at 04:33 AM.
-
Edit: whoops, double posted thinking I was editing. Sorry (get confused posting on the phone occasionally)
-
For the purely acoustic performance of an archtop guitar the bridge can have a noticeable influence on tone and volume. For amplified guitars the influence may be less apparent. An easy test is to replace a massive bridge on any guitar with one that is lighter and you will most likely hear an improvement. Even a few grams can make a difference. The lightest bridges don't have thumbwheels for adjustment. Violins ,cellos, flat top guitars, banjos and other stringed instruments don't have any adjustment on there bridge so it does work.
-
Like Matt pointed out: the archtop guitar bridge is pretty much a simple mass element.
I think that's all that the players with "electric ears" have to know.
The experts' tenor can be boiled down to:
A higher bridge mass tends to cut down on the sound output of the guitar at all frequencies, but has more of an effect on the high end. People usually say ebony bridges sound bassier. A heavy bridge is equivalent to a lower volume (especialy trebles), slower attack, more sustain, and generally will make a mellower sounding instrument.
Vice versa, a lower bridge mass will lead to a more responsive, generally louder guitar with less headroom.
The problem is it's often difficult to isolate variables in this business.
A stiff bridge will also cut down on the sound overall, but usually more in the bass, so stiffer bridges tend to sound more 'treble', all else equal.
A high damping wood (like ebony) in general tends to kill sound, highs more than lows. It's a bit hard to say how the dampening of the bridge material plays out - does a guitar with an ebony bridge lack high end sound because the bridge has high damping, or because it's heavy?
It get's complicated, as well, because the tailpiece can be considered as a sort of adjunct to the bridge, particularly if the back strings are short, and the added complication that the tailpiece can have some resonances in the range of the guitar's fundamentals.
Also, the bridge has the function of a mechanical impedance transformer. This means you can use one single, more or less homogenuous material (wood) and pay attention to the design (i.e., the violin style), or you can combine materials of different impedance (more the electric guitar style).
When D'Aquisto would adjust a guitar for the player's preferred tone, his primary "knobs" were the break angle by adjusting the tailpiece, and the bridge itself, by altering the mass or the footprint.
Horses for courses...
-
>> theres also the vintage moveable "fret" type hofner bridge solution <<
The older I grow, the more I like these simple though effective 'No. 103' bridges (ebony or rosewood) made by the Josef Teller Company.
While these bridges got known on Hofner guitars, two of my favorite archtop guitar makers in the past used them in silence.
The intonation setting can be done precise enough: the musicians with ultra sensitive ears (intonation-wise) will need to play fretless instruments anyway.
Nothing is perfect. I can see two problems with the No. 103 bridges:
1. The newer, actually available bridges are bigger and heavier than the ones Teller made back in the 50/60's. This could mean you'll have to do some rounding and sanding, especially on the upper part which now may be a bit on the broad side - Tune-o-matic style.
Weight reduction routing on both the upper and bottom part would be welcome on many, if not most bridges for electric-acoustic archtops, will also make the fitting to the arched top easy even for beginners.
2. Using fret wire saddles is logical and great for getting a balanced tone because the same material is used on the fretboard. The drawback is: the moveable fret saddles have to sit snugly in the wooden slots. Something that is not always the case when you get a new bridge, so an inspection with a magnifier and subsequent tweaking with a file might be necessary.
Needless to say that the filing of the slots for the string gauges has to be done with more care than on a standard wooden saddle. If these slots don't fit well, this could result in an unpleasant metallic buzzing side noise.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 05-03-2017 at 11:20 AM.
-
All three of the bridges you showed are from Teller, btw.
Originally Posted by neatomic
No. 107 - stew mac one
No. 103 - moveable "fret" type
No. 104 - sliding saddles
-
Killer post. What effect would you get by manipulating said variables? Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
For me any bridge tweaking will be on what are primarily acoustic instruments. If a difference is made, I hope to be able to hear it.
I get the discussion about the mass of a bridge but it seems like the basic variables would be:
- How efficient is the transfer of energy from the strings through the bridge. First to the saddle then to the bridge then to the guitar. Each step matters.
- What type of frequency filter does the bridge represent. I think this is not only mass but material. Again, saddle to bridge then bridge to guitar.
For example, a T O M is heavy (lots of mass) but it's bright and responsive.
I think Matt has a good point (and much experience) that you'll get more out of a smaller footprint base because it transfers energy better and doesn't impede the top. Still I see some fairly large bridges on really good acoustic archtops like Monteleone. Even huge bridges like on a Trenier New Yorker. So.. I remain in the realm of experimentation.
Finally, I've seen break angle as a tuning mechanism. Seems like you could bend a metal tailpiece to modify this. Anybody know what the relative change is by more or less break angle?
-
Do people file slots in the Hofner style ones or am I misreading? I have a Douglas fretless bass that is a Hofner copy and it has that kind of bridge with no slots and I think Hofners don't have slots but I have not ever seen or used them for guitar so I don't know about that and the thinner strings. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
the break angle of the strings coming from the tailpiece over the bridge saddles is crucial...perhaps the most so, of the many variables ie. size, materials etc ...jimmy D knew..of course!... one of the best guitar luthiers ever
the break angle affects the tone, the feel, and the set up...too shallow a break angle and you will have a softer tone, less percieved string tension & the possibility of strings jumping slots...too steep will give you a sharper tone, more percieved string tension and the possibility of making the bridge saddle sag (on the posts) towards the neck..it also can make the strings rub against the tailpiece side of the saddle (a problem with the newer teller/hofner fret style bridges (as ol'fret mentioned ^))...too steep can also cause strings to cut deeper into saddle slots, throwing off intonation and radius shaping
cheersLast edited by neatomic; 05-03-2017 at 05:56 PM. Reason: sp-
-
yes you want some kind of slot in the fret bits of the teller/hofner style saddle...without it, the string can move across the fret while plucking or picking and cause intonation problems...you don't have to go overboard tho..they can be shallow enough to just keep the string in place while the tension and rubbing of the string to fret forms its own groove Originally Posted by rio
also pertaining to ol'frets mention of the fret saddles moving on the newer teller/hofner bridges...if you rub beeswax on the fret tangs and insert in the saddle, they will no longer move
cheers
ps- you can also "tweak" those hofner/teller fret saddles by trying different sized frets and different material fretsLast edited by neatomic; 05-03-2017 at 04:28 PM.
-
Yes, people file slots in the Hofner-style ones. Originally Posted by rio
Yes, Hofners have slots filed onto the metal bridge pieces used with those bridges. Originally Posted by rio
-
As suggested in post #11, to the grief of some, there are no universally or directly applicable solutions when it comes to different bridges on a archtop guitar.
I'm sorry that my time is so restricted, so just some thoughts on comments in short! Neatomic and Hammertone made correct statements, and I'm sure other members might as well chime in on this topic.
>> How efficient is the transfer of energy from the strings through the bridge. First to the saddle then to the bridge then to the guitar. Each step matters. <<
Unfortunately very inefficient: general data vary between ca. 2% and 4% for guitars. The results depend first and foremost on your personal string gauge and your attack.
>> What type of frequency filter does the bridge represent. I think this is not only mass but material. Again, saddle to bridge then bridge to guitar.
For example, a T O M is heavy (lots of mass) but it's bright and responsive. <<
I've tried to touch on this topic. Personally, I' would have a hard time in hearing the difference between a bridge made of ebony or of rosewood - all else equal.
A TOM bridge is heavy, which leads to a lower volume (especially trebles), slower attack and more sustain.
In addition to the weight, metal is way stiffer than any wood. It will further cut down on the sound overall, but usually more in the bass, so stiffer bridges tend to sound more 'treble' or bright - all else equal.
In addition to the weight and high stiffness of a TOM, metal has comparably low damping properties, which will generally result in sound enhancing, again the highs more than the lows.
So what you experience with a TOM bridge is a mixture of the mentioned variables.
Acoustically, a TOM bridge can never be overly 'responsive'.
It would be interesting for all to play test one these extremely responsive, resonant, almost explosive acoustic archtops. Some think while lightweight bridges may be the best for responsiveness and power, they would come at a price in tone: not everyone likes the tone produced by an uber-light bridge; rarely players in the 13 - 56 ball park with a flat pick. Uh? Acoustic archtops combining the best of these worlds are hard to find, but they do exist. Like all guitars they may show some specific trade-offs, but this does not comprise their general power, response, decay, eveness or feedback resistency.
-
As to the Teller or Hofner No. 103 bridges I was unclear. They are made of three parts:
1. the wooden base part with threaded posts, comparable to many other adjustable bridge types.
2. the wooden upper part that shows four long slots (regular fret slots, probably 0.6mm wide).
3. the nickel silver fret saddle pieces that can both be shifted forward/backward (like on a TOM) and laterally (to optimize the strings' distances, also later).
The slots on part 2 are perfectly made. I've never experienced any unwanted side shifting so far. Quite the opposite: you have to be careful when shifting or removing/replacing these fret saddles because if you're in a hurry the edges of the slots may break out - the same as can happen on fretboard slots.
Exactly like on the fretboard, the fret pieces have to sit snugly both in the slots and on top of the wood - which is not always the case because the cut fret pieces can show burrs and/or the transition between the bottom of the crown and the tang is a bit wobbly.
Naturally, these fret wire saddles have to be notched to fit the strings, though certainly a bit more on the superficial side in comparison to a softer wooden saddle. In my limited experience especially the two treble strings can make a crazy side noise, if the notches for these strings are filed to wide and/or deep.
Apropos:
For all players of a Lang it is almost essential to keep these bridges because Lang quasi implemented them on his designs. This allows for attaching the floating pickup without having to cut the original Lang 'kidney' pickguard. Yuck - cut and mutilated pickguards, vintage or replica, IMO, suck on every nice looking archtop guitar!Last edited by Ol' Fret; 05-04-2017 at 08:12 AM.
-
There are probably more knowledgeable guys around here, who could provide first hand information on D'Aquisto's "bridge- and tailpiece" custom tuning. Basically he must have liked bulky bridges that were more on the heavy side, I suppose.
If you have access to East German archtops (and you're crazy enough), you could also experiment yourself. Most East German guitars showed the single-screw adjustable neck attachment system developed by Stauffer and Legnani. Johann Georg Stauffer in Vienna was one of the main teachers of C. F. Martin... but that's another story.
On Stauffer-Legnani style guitars it's easy to change the neck angle and the bridge height, hence the break angle over the bridge. One of my favorite subjects of experiment are often plain looking 17" Graubner 'Rex' archtops, sort of an ultra-cheap ES-350 copy with a laminated maple body (fortunately not so cheap sounding due to surprisingly fine lamination techniques).
The differences sound-wise are astonishing and in line with what guitar makers have found: a break angle on the low side (six degree - recommended, for example, by Benedetto) will lead to a mellow, more 'bassey' and 'lower mid-rangey' tone with less volume and attack, and not so much trebles; whereas a high break angle gives more down force on the top, resulting in more volume and attack, pronounced basses and more, sometimes even shrill trebles. Of course, all these isolated variables dont take into account how the much more important design and construction of the guitar body (carved/solid/laminated woods, the arching patterns, graduation, etc.) is supposed to sound like, respective, how much some not so desired body-related sound properties have to be balanced out.
One more really big chapter on guitar balancing would be the now reprehensibly neglected finishing or varnishing procedures.
The great Alan Carruth stated on experimental bridge designs: "Violin bridges have various resonant modes, and act as filter elements between the string and the box. You can actually tune them, and partially make up for problems with the way the box works. There's no reason you couldn't do the same with an archtop. I suspect that what you'd end up doing is reducing the high end sound, so it might not be as wonderful as alll that. It's time consuming to tune a bridge, too: you have to keep taking the bridge out and putting it back in... Of course, the bridge on the violin also works differently from the one on an archtop, mostly because of the sound post."
Alan gave also an interesting insight into D'Aquisto's tonal balancing by changing the tailpiece. I think it's worth reading yourself: MIMF • View topic - manipulating the tonal balance of a built archtop .
In fact all our horn-blowers were lushies, and I used to have to go around and get them out of bed to see they got to work. - Duke Ellington in the 1920's
-
Interesting about the tailpieces. Not sure I could tell it was about 240hz by tapping on one but it's easy enough to add mass to one of my light ones to see if there's any difference.
-
While there are exceptions, seems that most of the acoustic archtops that are extremely everything are at a price point where they were well and completely tuned by their custom makers. I'm thinking of the Loar's, Yunzhi's, Wu's, and Eastman's out there that are decent acoustic instruments at a price point that invites tinkering. Part of the fun. Thanks for your posts. Lots of interesting insights. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
the thing about spending too much time "fine tuning" your bridge and saddle is the second you change to different strings, all your works for naught, as string tension and mass is major part of the equation
(and that's not to say that endless bridge tweaking doesn't have its place!! hah)
i feel that on an archtop, the tailpiece/bridge string angle is much more integral to tone than the actual bridge dimensions and materials...the bridge just passes the energy from the strings, through to the body..the tailpiece/bridge angle actually helps create that string energy!
btw, the idea of the old epi frequensator tailpiece was based on this...variable length= variable angle
& thanks ol'fret for that carruth link..good stuff
cheersLast edited by neatomic; 05-04-2017 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos