-
I watched a video of Dan Erlwin bedding down an archtop bridge. The bedding was the full length of the bridge. My Godin 5th Avenue P90 Kingpin has an arched bridge that can only touch the guitar at the bridge ends. The middle underside of the bridge has a large gap that cannot be bedded.
Has Godin used this design to save them the time and effort to bed in a full bridge? Would a full seated bridge provide better tone?
[COLOR=var(--secondary-text)]Like
[COLOR=var(--secondary-text)]Answer[/COLOR]
[COLOR=var(--secondary-text)]Share[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
-
08-14-2021 10:24 AM
-
On a Godin I doubt it would make a lot of difference. Frankly it could depending on any guitar and the given situation. The generally accepted thought is full contact is better but one might experiment as it might be a surprise. One thing is that a full contact bridge spreads the weight of the tension of the strings over the top more evenly. That would structurally be a better situation but again it may not make a huge difference tone wise. It is all about experiment with different set ups, saddles, bridges and strings.
-
The Deacon speaks the truth.
I have a sample size of exactly 2: the Lehmann has feet and the Eastman 880 doesn't. Both are ebony and fit the arch perfectly. Both bodies are X-braced hand-carved lumber. They do sound different, but I really don't think the bridge has that much to do with it. But it might have, and perhaps not according to the generally accepted wisdom.
Lehmann's is a thicker top and has a woodier sound. Eastman is much thinner top and has more harmonic overtones. If anything, the Lehmann has the bigger acoustic voice. I believe the carve and bracing size has more to do with this difference than bridge design.Other players with different experiences and larger sample sizes may have different opinions.
Actually, I have a Godin 5th as well but I really wouldn't compare it to the others due to laminate body. Also, it's a plastic bridge. A guitar's sound is the sum of it's many parts all influencing each other in subtle ways.
There are a lot of respected luthiers who believe in "beefier the bridge the better", right up to the point of non adjustable solid hardwood. But there are plenty of fine instruments with lighter bridges on feet.
BTW the feet are right over the braces on the Lehmann, so who knows if string pressure distribution is really a thing or not.
-
I've switched many guitar bridges, going from solid to 2-footed, and back, on many guitars over the years. The only thing I'm sure of after that is that the tone will be different with a different base. Some improved to my ears, some were worse, and I still have no way of predicting what the difference will be. All I can recommend is to experiment and see what you prefer on your guitar.
-
Originally Posted by Beemer2
I watched a video of Dan Erlwin bedding down an archtop bridge. The bedding was the full length of the bridge. My Godin 5th Avenue P90 Kingpin has an arched bridge that can only touch the guitar at the bridge ends. The middle underside of the bridge has a large gap that cannot be bedded.
Has Godin used this design to save them the time and effort to bed in a full bridge? Would a full seated bridge provide better tone?
[COLOR=var(--secondary-text)]Like
[COLOR=var(--secondary-text)]Answer[/COLOR]
[COLOR=var(--secondary-text)]Share[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
-
Fwiw, My late 60s Gibson Johnny Smith had a full length base.
-
I think full or two points contact may determine the resonance, so the sound of the top. With two points the top is more free, especially for higher frequiencies, the guitar will sound a bit vivid compared to full contact. Be warned as, in Monthy Python ""That is the theory that I have and which is mine and what it is, too." "
-
One thing about the two footed models, depending on the curve of the arch, the adjustment posts may tilt inward or outward making adjusting the height of the bridge a pain. I'm no luthier but a solution to make the adjusters work right would be to take some more diddling to make the two feet actually fit the curve of the top instead of bending the bridge.
If the full contact bridge base was fit right, of those I've seen the adjustment posts were always straight up.
-
One could argue that a two-feet base is superior because it will adapt to the arch for optimum contact in any situation, like when you're intonating. It has been the choice for bowed instruments for centuries.
The theory of Trial-and-Error is the only theory that guarantees satisfactory results over time. Seek, and ye shall find.
-
And where the feet are in respect to the braces are can make a big difference: ask any cellist. But I don’t know if guitars are as sensitive.
-
Yes. It dates back to 1920s Gibsons . . . it was/is an effort at a 'self-fitting' bridge. Faster build with less fine-craft required. Originally Posted by Beemer2
Spot on IME. The competing merits of full-contact and self-fitting bases is an easy thing to overthink. Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
Just for another take on a two footed bridge, here is one from 1933 made by some guy who had recently opened a shop on Kenmare Street in Manhattan.
-
Check out this thread, which addresses the OP's question pretty directly.
put a new bridge on my Godin 5th Avenue Kingpin
The previous owner of the Kingpin I had replaced the original bridge with a wood non-footed one. It sounded really good, but I never heard it with the original so can't say how much difference it made.
One important thing to consider here is the bridge material. The original Godin bridge is made out of Tusq. Odds are, any non-footed replacement would be wood. So while the odds are you would hear a difference, this is probably more due to the material than the form of it.
FWIW, my Seventy-Seven has a footed bridge. I love its sound. Maybe a footless one would be better? I dunno, but I'm generally in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" camp. If you like what you got, save yourself from falling down the rabbit hole of swapping guitar parts. If you don't like it, lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
-
That D'angelico would be interesting to see who guitar. I think one made that early would not have the stairstep Tailpiece. Many went back to get that tailpiece from John after they became available, or at least upgraded. The bridge carve pattern at least on the saddle is very consistent with John's work, I have seen so many over the years they just stand out. The moral is at least on D'angelico guitars very few things were completely the same in each guitar. In fact many huge variations. Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
Just for another take on a two footed bridge, here is one from 1933 made by some guy who had recently opened a shop on Kenmare Street in Manhattan.
I think the premier bridge carver now is Mark Campellone. My 18 inch Camp deluxe is perfectly carved to the top and Mark does an crazy exact in getting the intonation set with the saddle. He does in effect a 2 tier gradual slop of the intonation from high e to low e. Magnificent!
-
You are exactly correct, Mark. The tailpiece was added in the late ‘30s by the original owner whose name is in the ledger, Andy Jackson. Andy played with Blanche Calloway and then Edgar Hayes. I have never been able to find anything about him later than about 1940. Photos with Edgar Hayes and Kenny Clarke around 1938-39 show this tailpiece on the guitar. Originally Posted by deacon Mark
-
Im giving this old thread a kick.
I had time to kill today so I yanked the 2 feet flex bridge off my ES125 and stuck it on my Eastman 810ce. I was wishing for something wonderful to happen...or even for more volume. Neither happened. It stayed on about 20 mintues.
Its not much of a scientific test since the one on the guitar is ebony and the gibson bridge was rosewood.
My results were the same volume but less precussive attack. Overall the tone was kind of airy (for lack of a better word). The tone seemed to shed its primary core so back they went. I guess the guys who designed these guitars knew what they were doing.
-
Could it be that rosewood gives a less percussive sound than ebony? Originally Posted by Sigmund451
-
What's the lighter coloured timber under the thumb screws? Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
Just for another take on a two footed bridge, here is one from 1933 made by some guy who had recently opened a shop on Kenmare Street in Manhattan.
-
Some say so. When you read on the net you find a zillion opinions based on an N of one. Im not going to speculate. Even if I got less of a core due to material there is nothing wrong with my bridge. IF I had happened to get a noticable increase in volume but not as much core due to the idea of material Id be willing to spend some bucks for an ebony footed model. In this instance there was no gain on any front. So Im gonna call it quits. If its not broken dont fix it!
-
Those are actually brass. Originally Posted by garybaldy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Thank you. I should have realised they wouldn't have been scraps of wood!! Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
-
Matt Cushman was of the opinion that the mass of the bridge makes more of a difference than the material (rosewood versus ebony, for example). I suspect hardness makes a difference as well.
-
The 2-footed bridge base is intended to direct string energy to the braces underneath. As long as the braces are positioned effectively, it is not necessary to achieve full contact over the top. I have (in my dissecting high end archtops) also several times seen a full contact bridge base that was actually hollowed out underneath, so that is a variant of same.
Last edited by mikeSF; 12-17-2025 at 11:17 AM.
-
I have a full contact but hollowed out bridge on my Favino oval hole GJ guitar. Whether anyone, on hearing it, could detect that was the case remains to be seen. Originally Posted by mikeSF
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos