-
so i'm still getting to know my Godin 5th avenue Kingpin, and i've noticed that the floating bridge on this guitar sits on little "feet" if you will--there's a space in the middle that does not make contact with the top.
does a bridge who's base makes full contact with the top transfer acoustic tone better? and if so, is this current bridge the reason i have virtually no problem with feedback on this guitar (unlike the 'ol emperor regent, which was a feedback machine)
just wondering...
-
10-06-2009 03:58 PM
-
Beats me. but by the way, is the bridge rosewood or some GraphTech material?
-
it's graphtech. supposed to look and sound like ebony, but be less resistant to wear (i think that's 'newspeak' for "hell of a lot cheaper and easier to fabricate")the guitar sounds fine, but you know--always gotta wonder, dontcha?
-
That's supposed to be the conventional knowledge ... the one that I bought for my Guild looks exactly like yours, i.e. makes contact only at the ends.
I'm thinking that it's no big deal; looking at the bridge on my fiddle, it only makes contact on the ends too and that thing is LOUD !
-
That's typical construction for an arch top bridge (including the violin family): two feet that conform to the arch of the top.
This would minimize any damping effect that the bridge, pressed down by string tension, would have on the top. "Coupling" is a function of the vibration modes of the top and how the frequencies driven by the strings make it respond, as well as the string pressure.
Even my Gretsch Country Gent had that type of bridge, even though it had a thick plywood top with heavy pickups screwed to it, so I think it qualifies as "traditional."
-
I love the 5th Avenue, and managed to track an accoustic one down almost as soon as they came out in the UK. Didn't like the look of the bridge though and tried to fit a more conventional full bridge from my box of bits, but it was longer then the original and the contour of the top meant an awful lot of work to get a complete fit - so I put the original back. Didn't even realise it wasn't wood - which shows you how much I know. The bridge on mine is extremely flexible and so sits firmly on the top under string pressure - maybe this helps too in making assembly easier. Had no problems with it. Links in the other 'bridge' thread to Frets.com has maybe convinced me that suction-like fits are not necessary.
-
My '66 L4C had the same bridge design as well. (But it was rosewood.)
Last edited by Tom Karol; 10-06-2009 at 06:34 PM. Reason: Add rosewood.
-
The bridge on my 5th Avenue is wood...they changed it shortly after I got mine.
-
I will find the article tonight: I think it was in a Bob Benedetto book or the Gibson L5 book but gibson made the switch from a wide base to smaller feet because it made fitting the bridge easier to do. It didnt affect the tone.
I was listening to Bob discussing bridges at the Montreal Guitar Show. What surprised him (and me) was that he did several tests and found that the metal posts that adjust the saddle on the bridge have a miniscule impact on the tone. Whoda thunk it.
-
I just got home from work.
My L5 (1948) -- wide base (no feet). It's very lively, which is the positive way to think about feedback! But I don't want to generalize from this, because there are, as we know, many factors.
-
My bad. Page 41 of "The Gibson L5" by Adrian Ingram. I dont want to plaigerize so here is the gist.
Originally Posted by dh82c
By 1955....
L5 CES
The double foot bridges were easier to fit to a top and, because they flexed more than single foot, could be used on different models with varying degrees of arch.
L5C
Retained the single foot bridge for better acoustic performance. Oddly enough they also fitted the bridge with a TOM which inhibited the acoustic qualities.
BDLH: You are in a better place to confirm or deny this than me
Last edited by dh82c; 10-06-2009 at 09:40 PM.
-
Did I read that correctly, that the L-5CES is supposed to have the two "feet" on the bridge instead of being made from a solid piece of ebony ?
Mine sure doesn't, neither does the L-4CES ... (they are identical). What's up with that statement, I wonder ?
randyc
-
I should have been more precise, I have a 1948 L5-P which is the earlier name of the L5-C (acoustic cutaway). Solid based rosewood bridge. Loud, but I've lowered the action as far as it can go --- I'm no Freddie Green with a inch high action! Originally Posted by dh82c
BDLH: You are in a better place to confirm or deny this than me
-
Do you know their model years? Originally Posted by randyc
-
Yes, they are both '98s, Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
randyc
-
I know a good luthier who would definitely argue in favour of full contact with the guitar top. He doesn't like the arrangement with the 2 posts and the little wheels to adjust action either. A friend had a bridge made by him from ebony, which was just solid. The action could not be adjusted, so it had to be set up to his preference at the workshop. Mentioned just out of interest, but I suppose he does have a point - channelling the string vibrations through two narrow metal posts can't be good for tone, can it?
-
See Bob Benedetto's finding in reply #9.
-
I think the string tension probably wipes out any contribution of the bridge support. Of course, D'Aquisto made his bridges HIS way, and I wouldn't want to get in a fight with him or any other luthier (living or dead). But we're talking very subtle differences, I'm sure.
-
Yes, I'd missed that BDLH, I should read through threads a bit more carefully sometimes. Although the totally solid ebony bridge did look kind of cool (it was for a blonde 1939 non-cutaway Epiphone archtop!) and was very nicely made, I personally thought that I would miss the adjustable action. So I'm quite pleased that Bob Benedetto no less thinks this way! Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
-
I've been looking at bridges, and it appears that the solid vs two foot sides are just about evenly divided. I notice that my Samick L5 copy has two feet; my Chet Atkins Country Gent had two feet (and, the replacement tune-a-matic I briefly installed in place of the rocker bridge had a two foot base); many of the photos I have looked at show solid bridges.
I conclude that it was indeed the ease of fitting the two foot bridge that led to its popularity.
-
Ok.. I have to chime in here (because I dont dare say it in the other thread). I have an Epi Emp Regent (and I am not ashamed of that). There is another thread ripping the guitar apart because it isnt as good as a gibson.
Ok. What surprised me (and I forgot about) what the EmpReg ships with a single foot bridge. Funny that a company bent on cutting corners would do this. (also the stock pots are alphas which are usually considered acceptable. they are better than most of the korean stock pots).
Just wanted to share that with you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
-
Actually, a single foot bridge would be slightly less expensive to manufacture than the more intricate shape shown at the beginning of the thread, the two foot one. (But neither configuration is exactly expensive - Stew-Mac sells ebony two-feet versions for about $15 ..) Originally Posted by dh82c
Gosh, I didn't mean to touch any sensitive areas with my criticism of the Epiphone Emperor Regent, sorry. Mine is a piece of garbage that I refuse to sell - although I will GIVE it away in the right circumstances - but as I stated (several times) others may have a better product.
Maybe you got the one on which no corners were cut --- is your guitar nice and round ?
cheers,
randyc
PS: You misunderstood the message about the Epi not being as good as a Gibson, that isn't even arguable. The message was that many people on the internet CLAIM that the Epi IS as good as a Gibson --- I attribute that kind of weak boastfulness to a combination of ignorance and defensiveness.Last edited by randyc; 10-10-2009 at 10:08 PM. Reason: add PS
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale