Tune-o-Matic vs Wooden Bridge on Archtops?

[Stringswinger]

Wood. Because it sounds better to me. And that is all that matters.

[lawson-stone]

I love the sound of both. Guitars that came with the TOM or wood standard, I kept that way. I like the variety of sounds. If I only had one, though, I think I'd go with wood.

[rpguitar]

Totally depends on the guitar. Not a one-size-fits-all choice.

Generally, if the guitar has significant and appealing acoustic qualities, wood is preferred. If the electric character is the primary appeal, or if one wishes to coax more sustain from the guitar, a metal TOM is preferred.

I have wood saddles on all of my archtops except:

L-5CES, because a metal tune-o-matic is stock and it gives me THAT sound.

'85 ES-175, because it's an electric guitar and rather dark. It benefits from the sustain and bright top end of a metal saddle.

My '63 ES-175 is an example where I can't permanently decide. It's under 6 lbs and very lively acoustically. A wood saddle brings out those qualities and helps it sound more old school. On the other hand, it sounds more fluid and modern with a TOM. So on this guitar, I swap periodically.

[feet]

my acoustics have wooded bridges, my electrics have tune o matics, how's that? with the caveats that:

-all my tune o matics are stainless steel
-my 6118 has a tru arc (also stainless steel)

everything's working out fine. everything sounds awesome, and the stainless steel is just one of my tweaks that make my guitars unique. feet like, if you will. for example, the byrdland doesn't sound like a byrdland, it sounds like my byrdland. which is how i like it. both familiar and new.

[skiboyny]

Wood gives me closest to the sound I'm looking for. I only have archtops soo...

[jbear]

Totally depends on the guitar. Not a one-size-fits-all choice.

My '63 ES-175 is an example where I can't permanently decide. It's under 6 lbs and very lively acoustically. A wood saddle brings out those qualities and helps it sound more old school. On the other hand, it sounds more fluid and modern with a TOM. So on this guitar, I swap periodically.

That's interesting...I recently added a '14 VOS 59 ES175, and it has a stock RW bridge. It is very bright and loud acoustically; I could play it without an amp. Since I lean toward a more Metheny/Kreisberg style, I am considering a TOM. I've been having so much fun playing with it that I haven't really experimented with anything yet short of changing the roundwounds that were on it to flat 12's. I'm wondering if I might even go up to 13's.

[Greentone]

Carved archtop with a floater: I prefer a wood-saddled bridge.

Carved archtop with set pickup(s): I prefer a wood-saddled bridge...unless it's a L5-CES. Then, to get "that" sound, I want a TOM.

ES-175-style guitar: I prefer a TOM with a two-pickup _modern_ model and a wood bridge with a vintage, single-pickup model. So, if I were playing Jim Hall or Herb Ellis' P90 50s 175s, I'd prefer a wooden bridge. (OTOH, I played Ellis' guitar after he had Gibson install a humbucker and a TOM, and it still sounded and played great.)

For a Tal/ES-350-style laminate guitar: it's situation specific. I have played TF's that I would never think of swapping out the TOM. OTOH, my Matsumoku-made copy of the ES-350/L-5/Super-V sounds better with the original-style wood bridge than with the TOM that I used for years.

[sgosnell]

Mostly wood, but I've had a couple of guitars that sounded better to me with a TOM, at least amplified. They didn't have a lot of acoustic sound, and maybe that's why. So wood for most, but there are exceptions. It's guitar-specific for me, but I always at least try wood, and use a TOM if I have to.

[entresz]

I prefer wooden bridges - I replaced the TOM on my Matsumoku Epi Emperor with a wooden bridge and it opened up the sound in a big way. The guitar became a lot more lively acoustically and electrically it sounds sweeter - there isn't that metallic zing in the trebles that was there before.

[stansonc]

After reading much on the WWW and playing archtop and gypsy styles, I think a solid wood (of either ebony or rosewood) compensated bridge is preferable over a TOM.

A TOM is great to get the intonation just right. And good with semi hollows or players who get most of their sound from outboard amps, effects, and eqs, and do not rely much on the natural acoustic sound of your guitar.

The TOM is really a thing of many parts. (Has to be at least 16 or more small parts plus two larger ones) The sound transfers down through these parts and eventually gets to the top, which is the sound board.
Plus those who use humbuckers or PAF pickups already are heading towards the electric sound.
Fixed bridges can use TOM because they already have the block underneath the bridge.

But if play a full true hollow body and are into using or developing the natural acoustic properties and projecting that sound, I feel a single solid bridge is a better route.

A bone, rosewood, or ebony bridge fashioned for your guitar with height, and compensation will project and enhance the natural sound better.

I have not used bone, Iheard it is great, but I cannot say much about that material.
Rosewood, is the most popular bridge wood overall, it seems to give more mids and highs but with less sustain than ebony.

I prefer Ebony because it gives better sustain and more lows, while looking great in matching the darker wood trim and an ebony fingerboard.

Having one solid piece as a floating bridge projects the total sound down into the guitar.

Getting the fit, string notch and compensation just right beforehand is key.

[OneWatt]

I know this is a dated thread, but I couldn't resist offering an update as I finally got around to swapping out the tune-o-matic metal bridge that came with my Ibanez AF105-NT for the rosewood replacement that also came with it back when I bought it (in 2007).

It's pretty hard to explain why I never tried this before (okay, no good excuse). But now that I have, along with recently switching over to flatwound Rotosound strings, this Artcore jazz box sounds remarkably better than ever.

The tone has always been excellent but now, with the rosewood bridge, its tone is beyond superb. Can't believe it took me 13 years to give this a try... having left the wooden bridge aging quietly in the case. Adjusting the action downward by lowering the bridge as much as possible without fret buzzing, the action on this Ibanez is beyond remarkable. Plays itself.

Looking back, I guess the reason I told myself to stick with the tune-o-matic was that I could adjust the intonation to as perfect a spot as possible for each individual string. But frankly, even though the replacement stock wooden Ibanez bridge is "compensated" in a single ascending direction, the intonation is still quite fine - it's the tone that's now so much more mellow and wholesome sounding.

So now I'm wondering if I should even bother trying to obtain a custom replacement bridge piece to sit on the bridge platform that is compensated according to the wound vs unwound string profiles (i.e., 2 unwound, then 4 flatwound - i.e., so a 2 + 4 pattern of compensation shifts like I had set up with the tune-o-matic, rather than the equal ascending increments across all 6 strings as seen on the Ibanez factory rosewood bridge). Perhaps not worth the trouble/bother.

And I'm also wondering whether I should mess to update and/or upgrade these 13 yr old pots and caps, or just leave well enough alone.

See... this is what happens when I start to fiddle with setting up my guitars. Once it starts, I have a hard time stopping.

[JCat]

Definitly a wooden bridge. (I got enough of rattling and sagging ToMs on my solidbodies and semi). A one piece bridge cut to proper radius makes a beautiful tone and is reliable and easy to maintain. Easy to get good enough intonation, no hassle. It goes together with a trap tailpiece, on an archtop only. Lovely.

[FredH]

Same here. Always wood. I just prefer the sound. I switched the TOM on my 89 ES175 for a rosewood bridge off of a 59 ES175 and what a difference. With 2 exceptions, all of my other archtops are carved with wood bridges.