-
I'd like to dip into the brain trust here and learn about floating archtop bridges.
What makes them efficiently transfer energy into the top. Here's why..
By lowering the nut, leveling the frets and reshaping the bridge, My luthier made my HJS18 one of the best players I've ever had. He re-radius'd the bridge base because it wasn't fully touching the top. He also recut the top of the bridge because the string spacing was a joke. But when he did that, I believe it was at the expense of some tone and sustain. He had to remove at least 3/16" from both pieces. As a result, there is now a 5/16" gap between the top of the bridge base and the bottom of the bridge-top. The mediocre acoustic sustain and tone is noticeable when I go from my other guitars back to the HJS. It sounds and feels a lot like my old L7C, which had those skinny frets. This guitar doesn't have skinny frets. And it requires some extra effort to get the notes to blossom and hold..
I cut a piece of purple heart and wedged it in between the base top and bridge bottom (to fill the gap). The guitar instantly came alive again. I was able to feel the notes in the body.
This guitar is a bridge away from really being the best guitar I've ever owned.
I just want to learn about what makes a bridge great. What makes it transfer the maximum amount of string energy into the top and then into the body.
If I can tap into the vast amount of knowledge here on the forum, I'd be really grateful.
PS, I Emailed Bill Gagnon this morning to see if he is still making bridges. His website says he is no longer taking orders. I hope that is not the case.
-
12-11-2017 12:19 PM
-
That's a substantial part of the answer to your question there. To me it's all about the coupling between the strings and the body (and the neck when it comes to a properly made nut).
Originally Posted by Max405
Not an archtop expert but this apllies to all types of guitars.
-
There are so many variables:
Full contact (L-5 style) vs. feet only contact (175 Style). My thought is that you want full contact on a carved top. On a laminate I think it makes little difference.
Saddle material (Ebony, Rosewood, bone, Metal (as in a TOM), other woods). I like Rosewood the best (it has the warmest tone)
Proper radius (you want the saddle to be the same as the fretboard for the best feeling action)
Proper size string slots (too deep or too narrow and the string does not ring properly)
I imagine saddle or base thickness is another variable. Some luthiers claim that less wood is better, but Jimmy D'Aquisto made huge bridges. He thought otherwise.
Like all things guitar related, you can get opposite opinions from very qualified and knowledgeable people. You have to figure out what works for you.
-
-
I have two 1947 Gibson acoustic archtops, an L-5N and a Super 400. Both of them have their original Brazilian rosewood bridges and saddle tops. The saddle tops have bronze inserts in the holes that sit on the thumbwheel posts. I have had these bridge/saddles on the guitars since I've owned them, as they are original equipment and they fit great.
I had never been happy with the L-5's acoustic tone. I had a DeArmond on it for a long time, but this always depressed me, as a non-cutaway blonde L-5 is supposed to be an acoustic guitar. I had tried many types of strings and had the frets dressed. A couple of weeks ago, I randomly decided to replace the L-5 rosewood saddle with a nice ebony one. I can only tell you that it literally transformed the guitar's acoustic tone. It went from somewhat poor sustain and a blunt sort of sound to warm and clear, with deeper bass and sweeter highs.
Just the saddle, not the bridge base. WTF...
So I performed the same surgery on my Super 400 since I had another ebony saddle, and yup, same deal. The Super had always sounded good, but now it was phenomenal, and the curvature of the ebony saddle matched better, letting me set it up for smoother action. My goodness... My theory is that it's the brass inserts. But I don't know. Ebony beats rosewood for me just about every time (done it before as well).
Also, watch the grooves in the wood saddles, as a string can get lodged in there over time just enough to dampen the tone. Sometimes just a little bit of smoothing out/widening can open up the tone. Take a pick and wrap the edge with sandpaper, turn it on its side and rub it back and forth gently in the slot. You don't want to deepen the slot much if at all; you just want to open it up width-wise so the string doesn't crimp in there. I've had some "wow" moments doing that as well, especially with the two plain steel treble strings.
-
Most people seem to agree that a perfect fit between the bridge base and the top is ideal. IME, that's not always the case. It depends on the top, and some seem to sound better with either some gap in the center or at the ends, and it's impossible for me to predict which will sound better. The strings make a difference here, and lighter or heavier strings can make a big difference. I don't believe it's science, but rather art, and it sometimes needs extensive trial and error to find the best fit for everything. It's a very complicated interaction system - top thickness, carve profile, wood (really complex, every tree is different), solid vs laminate, bridge composition and height, neck and tailpiece angles, which affect break angle, and on and on. I don't believe there is any one answer for any guitar. In your case, it's possible, but not certain, that fitting the bridge to the top was the cause of the tone deterioration. It could be lots of things. All I know to advise is to keep trying different things until you are satisfied.
-
I have another observation, this time about string gauge on acoustic archtops with floating bridges.
We always hear people say "use heavy strings to drive the top" but I have usually opted for lighter ones, mostly 12s and occasionally 11s. Here's what I think. The lighter strings produce a little less volume, but their reduced tension presses less against the bridge/top, lowering the fundamental pitch of the instrument. It's just like pressing on the center of a drum head. The more you press, it stiffens and the pitch rises. Imagine your heavy strings doing that, pressing harder on the soundboard, tightening it and reducing the air in the body just enough to raise the pitch.
Lighter strings, less pressure, deeper tone with more sustain...
Now if you're Mr. Stout a.k.a. @CampusFive, bashing out rhythm in front of a horn line, then maybe you don't want to do that. But if you're rpguitar, plucking tender melodies to accompany his solitude under the glow of an Apple monitor, you might very well be so inclined.Last edited by rpguitar; 12-11-2017 at 02:13 PM.
-
Take the advice I gave you that I got from Jimmy D. Look how he made his bridges. You need to personally call Bill G. He won't answer your email. Frank Ford will build you a beautiful set up also but he is not cheap. way more than Bill.
A violin maker is another option.
-
It's possible to lower the volume and muddy the tone of an archtop by using strings that are too heavy. It depends on the instrument, like everything else, as I said above. It's a very complicated puzzle, with so many factors interacting, and any one change can affect many parameters, sometimes unexpectedly. It's all trial and error, but it's fun to try new stuff, it never gets old to me.
-
Some personal archtop observations:
On some of my guitars 13's have been the magic choice, on others 12's work better (outside of my classical and Gypsy guitar everything gets TI Flats)
On some guitars a rosewood saddle has been the magic choice, on others ebony works fine (I do not like TOM's on a fully hollow guitar).
IMO, Trial and error is the only way to get an archtop dialed into one's particular taste. As in many areas of life, what works for me might not work so well for you (and vice versa
)
-
Roger its funny you mention the brass inserts. Here is a snip from my email to Bill Gagnon this morning.
I thought the brass inserts actually made the difference in the Gibson over the Heritage. I am anxious to see what Bill says.
"I have a Gibson Johnny Smith that I believe, achieves muchbetter tone and sustain because of its bridge design. I honestly think thosebrass inserts that shroud the posts help transfer more string energy into thebody of the Gibson. If this Heritage had a better bridge, It would be the bestguitar I’ve ever owned."
-
It all makes you go "arrrggggh!" at times.
I drew a conclusion that I had two rosewood bridges with the same construction, including those brass inserts, from the same year, and both guitars improved with a wood-only ebony bridge. But it could just be the rosewood vs. ebony. Probably is. But I also have a '63 175 with a stock rosewood bridge having those inserts, and nearly everything else I tried sounded better (it sports a TOM now).
Probably is the rosewood...
-
JD, in 1981 (before there was much anguish about this sort of thing), I had my luthier (Ralph Novak, of Novx guitars) put a stop tail in a 1968 335 that I had obtained (It came from the factory with a Bigsby). The difference in sustain was remarkable. I have noticed that the 2017 ES-175 Figured has greater sustain than my other 175's, which I attribute to the pinned bridge. Perhaps the metal to wood contact makes some difference? My 63 ES-175 has the brass inserts and is a Brazilian Rosewood bridge with the two feet. And it sounds great. Originally Posted by Max405
Do we all need to acquire some brass inserts for the guitars that do not have them? It is a easy task to install and remove them. Where would we get them?
-
Some opinions - definitely not addressing all the opinions given above.
1. Sustain comes from NOT transferring energy to the top (thus keeping it in the string), and from not losing energy to odd resonances. In an arch top this is most often a function of string mass vs. bridge mass, and resonance in the bridge saddle, base, and the guitar as a whole.
It is not bizarre for many to experience better sustain with lighter strings.
2. The mass of the bridge and saddle are significant. You can make a very notable difference in acoustic response, and sustain, and “tone” by switching between rosewood and the much heavier ebony.
3. In my experience, it is not at all true that a continuous contact base offers a consistently better result that a two-foot base. Remember that the two feet are (unless you have some poorly designed top) sitting directly on the braces (x or parallel).
4. The top of your arch top, for all practical purposes, NEVER vibrates as a single surface. Even the lowest notes you hear are made through vibrations of subsections of the top. Downward pressure on the top can vary very widely with remarkably little (as in not discernible) change to these sub-section vibrations. Most sound changes attributed to changes in downward pressure are coincidental with far more significant changes. (OK now there is a minuscule up/down vibration to the top as a single total surface, but this is for all practical purposes insignificant.)
5. The saddle material in direct contact with the strings can make a big difference. Primarily in the atonal transient vibrations, must often heard as the “attack”, but also in the sustain of some ringing overtones on fairly flexible strings like the high E and a round wound G.
6. My speculation is that the difference you experienced is a combination of the overall loss of mass, and what could well be some resonance within the saddle itself.
In my opinion, there is no need to accept the downsides you hear. But some new hunks of base and saddle wood are likely in order.
While checking the fit of the base to the top, also check the fit of the saddle to the wheels. This is VERY rarely a problem, but worth a quick check.
All in my opinion.
-
I prefer the 'single foot' bridge. The 'two foot' bridges tend to splay apart when pressure is applied due to the flimsy, thin connecting piece and the asymmetrical design, whereby the screw stud is not geometrically centered over the contact surface.
-
The flimsy-o-sity of the connecting section is designed to let the feet find best contact with the top independent of each other.
It practice this has its imperfections, but that is the principle. You will find some bases with extremely thin and flexible center sections.
For certain it makes fitting the base to the top a little trickier than a solid, continuous base.
-
He already has a ebony bridge. His problem is the saddle is jacked up way too much now after removing height off the saddle and thickness off the base. This is more problematic with a wood saddle than a metal one. Too much threaded shaft gap between the saddle and base is not a good thing.
-
it's interesting to note that Gibson began using ebony bridges and then switched over to rosewood in the 30's when the advanced models were introduced.
then they remained rosewood until the Johnny Smith model was introduced in '61, but that was the only guitar that made the switch, likely because John D'Angelico was using ebony and Smith requested ebony.
then in the mid 70s the high end Gibsons all received ebony and have remained so.
-
John D'Angelico used Ebony fingerboards and Ebony bridges
Epiphone used Rosewood fingerboards and Rosewood bridges
Gibson used Ebony fingerboards on the Super 400 and L-5, Rosewood fingerboards on the other archtops and Rosewood bridges on all acoustic archtops (with the exception of the Johnny Smith). Eventually, Gibson went to Ebony bridges on guitars with Ebony fingerboards.
Let's hope that Gibson doesn't start using Richlite bridges.
-
actually when the saddle sits directly on the base you have increased potential for more vibrating and weird overtones..especially with the metal thumbwheels in between the wood
furthermore to set up a guitars action based on the saddle and base touching, prevents all the benefits of having an adjustable bridge...which comes in handy when any of the guitars parameters change ie neck angle, top movement, even neck/trussrod changes etc
a well done bridge should allow the possibility of up and down movement..not bottomed out or jacked up too high
when you see a guitar with the saddle either screwed down on the base or way high off the base, that's usually a sign that the neck angle may be off
cheers
ps- to check for proper neck angle..run an accurate straightedge down the neck from the first fret...the bottom should touch the saddle at the height right where the slots are...Last edited by neatomic; 12-11-2017 at 07:10 PM. Reason: sp-
-
It sounds like the bridge saddle has been weakened by removal of wood from the top of the saddle. If the saddle is flexing between the posts that is not good. Any flexing of the bridge or bridge saddle is not wanted. If you can not find a suitable bridge or saddle or both I can custom make you almost anything you want on my mill from either ebony or rosewood.
-
There you go Joe. A bridge made by the best......problem solved. Matt is the man ! (super nice guy too). Originally Posted by Matt Cushman
-
Here is a saddle I recently made that is custom cut for better intonation.
-
You need a new saddle made with proper mass, proper string spcing and radius.
-
i was under the impression that Joe D was talking more about the transfer of volume/sound the bridge transfers to the guitar body...via the saddle/base interface...intonation (and the need for correct saddle positioning is a separate (tho important) issue..but that depends just as heavily on type of strings being used & other set-up factors...ie. almost impossible to get right without having the guitar in hand
luck
cheers
ps- incredible piece of workmanship from matt c notwithstanding, of course!!...
a trip to montana may be in order Joe D!! hah
Reply With Quote
Julian Lage Trio, Amsterdam, April 17 2024
Today, 02:19 AM in The Players