WD Music archtop bridge?

[RJVB]

I keep looking around for replacement bridges for my Loar, as I'm not having much luck ordering the "Foley" bridge in ebony with bone insert saddle. I'm beginning to get a hunch it's been discontinued, leaving only the rosewood version. Rosewood being softer than ebony I fear that going from an all-ebony bridge + saddle to a rosewood bridge with bone saddle isn't going to make much tonal difference.

I saw a different, all-ebony design under the WD Music brand: Ebony Archtop Bridge with Ebony Base and Metal Adjustable Thumbwheels

The claim that

The base of this bridge is extremely special as it's design utilizing two feet with a hollow bottom rather than a solid mount base, creating a self-seating feature not found on other archtop bridges. This makes our AB-152 bridge a step above all the rest in ease of use and reliability.

If this one requires less work adapting it to the top that's a benefit in its own. Violin-family bridges use 2 (smaller!) feet instead of a full-width, full-contact base too and they have been around long enough to establish that this is indeed the better design (for a maple bridge at least...).

Anyone on here who has experience with this brand and model, or who has compared "single-foot" with "dual-foot" bridges (on the same guitar)?

[JohanAbrandt]

I keep looking around for replacement bridges for my Loar, as I'm not having much luck ordering the "Foley" bridge in ebony with bone insert saddle. I'm beginning to get a hunch it's been discontinued, leaving only the rosewood version. Rosewood being softer than ebony I fear that going from an all-ebony bridge + saddle to a rosewood bridge with bone saddle isn't going to make much tonal difference.

I saw a different, all-ebony design under the WD Music brand: Ebony Archtop Bridge with Ebony Base and Metal Adjustable Thumbwheels

The claim that

If this one requires less work adapting it to the top that's a benefit in its own. Violin-family bridges use 2 (smaller!) feet instead of a full-width, full-contact base too and they have been around long enough to establish that this is indeed the better design (for a maple bridge at least...).

Anyone on here who has experience with this brand and model, or who has compared "single-foot" with "dual-foot" bridges (on the same guitar)?

Unless you plan to play your guitar with a bow, you cant read to much into what is best for violin instruments

[Stringswinger]

I have bought a couple of Asian made ebony archtop bridges with two feet and they do a good job of self adjusting as opposed to the full contact bridges which require a lot of sanding.

They say sustain and volume are better with the full contact bridge. Who knows? I can say for certain that rosewood bridges provide a warmer tone than an ebony bridge.

[RJVB]

Unless you plan to play your guitar with a bow, you cant read to much into what is best for violin instruments

I'm not convinced that the way strings are excited has much importance for how string energy is transmitted to the top.

They say sustain and volume are better with the full contact bridge. Who knows? I can say for certain that rosewood bridges provide a warmer tone than an ebony bridge.

More volume I could understand, but not more sustain, if a full contact bridge is indeed heavier as it looks it would be (but more volume would also mean more "material" to sustain...)

Rosewood warmer, yes, that would fit with them being softer and thus absorbing more of the higher frequencies. I'm afraid that it will also mean that the acoustic sound higher up the fretboard loses livelyness.

[JohanAbrandt]

I'm not convinced that the way strings are excited has much importance for how string energy is transmitted to the top.

I guess you didnt watch the video =)

[RJVB]

I watched it a while back already. Will do so again but what I seem to recall is a pointing of the fact that bowed instruments don't need to worry about sustain, and how the bow constrains the vibration. I also seem to recall not being very convinced by the importance of that last argument. After all, at least when fingerpicking I think we try to make the string vibrate mostly parallel to the fretboard, to limit buzzing.

[deacon Mark]

I would get one of these on this page.
Guitar Parts Factory - Wood Bridges (guitarpartsresource.com)

One option is Ebony with Gold finished thumb wheels. I personally like full contact bridge with the top. This put even pressure over the whole bridge and top in a better way. I happen to think it is superior in construction but frankly might be little difference in final sound in some cases. On a carved top guitar it just makes sense to have pressure all across the top on in only 2 places. Also you cannot compare violins to guitars really in any way. Violins have sound post and transmit the sound differently than guitars. They are also bowed instruments.

You just get the bridge and tape some 120 sandpaper and I then go to 220 and 320. Google a video on how to do it.

[RJVB]

I would get one of these on this page.
Guitar Parts Factory - Wood Bridges (guitarpartsresource.com)

That page lists the WD bridge (in a rosewood version) but also the rosewood version of the Foley I am after. It also listed the ebony version of that bridge before...

[deacon Mark]

That page lists the WD bridge (in a rosewood version) but also the rosewood version of the Foley I am after. It also listed the ebony version of that bridge before...

i am lost so what does that mean?

[sgosnell]

I've switched between solid and footed bridges on several guitars over the years. Some sounded better with solid, some with footed. At least to my ears. I absolutely cannot predict which will sound better on any guitar a priori, I have to install and hear it before I know how it will sound.

There really isn't much difference in density between rosewood and ebony, on average. I really don't believe you can hear any difference, although there is certainly visual difference. I'm much less concerned with looks, much more with sound, and I've owned guitars with both rosewood and ebony bridges, and in fact swapped between them on the same guitar, and I couldn't hear much if any difference with the same base, different saddle. Epiphones from NYC came with all rosewood, very few with ebony, and they sound great.

[Hammertone]

Gotta love the Ken Parker videos. And the Ken Parker archtops. Hollow bridges are cool. Here's how Wenzel Rossmeisl made them in the '50s/'60s:

[RJVB]

i am lost so what does that mean?

You pointed me to a guitarpartsresource page with wooden archtop bridges saying you'd pick one from there. When I open it I see the WD Music bridge among the choices, and also the "Foley" model marketed by AllParts, the one with the bone insert saddle. I don't know guitarpartsresource so I'm not implying that presence of either model in their catalog means anything in terms of quality.
A few months back they also listed the Foley bridge in ebony, not just the rosewood one. The fact it's gone has me slightly worried that it may have been discontinued, but I'm waiting for a reply from an AllParts UK representative.

I had to check with my violin luthier anyway so I asked him how he thought a solid vs. an ebony vs. a rosewood bridge would do on a bowed instrument. He must have some idea and even if the mechanics of sound production are not the same (after the vibrations have been transferred to the top O:-) ) his answers should provide some food for thought.

(When I got the violin he built it had a gorgeous bridge of a unique design in flame maple. He ended up replacing it with a more standard design in the usual kind of maple because there was something not entirely right with the sound. It's too long ago that I can remember, and this change was part of a number of other changes so I only heard the net difference.)

[sgosnell]

I would be rather leery of any new violin designs, whether bridge or something else. Over the centuries, pretty much every alternate possibility has been explored, and the losers have been abandoned. All the mousetraps have been tried, and there are probably none better than the standard ones. Perhaps some could be invented for the electric guitar, which is much younger, but it's rare. The standard options are standard for very good reasons - they work, and are relatively cheap and easy to implement. Archtop bridges have continued to have mostly the same options - solid or two footed, wooden or tune-o-matic, with minor variations. There are outliers, such as Ken Parker, but while his version may well be better than the factory standards, the labor and cost won't allow use by factories or most luthiers. Mostly, we get what we get.

[deacon Mark]

To me carved top guitars including the bridges, and the rest of the guitar have not necessarily gotten better as pointed out. Some luthiers are trying different things but so far we have the standards to judge. Gibson L5, Super 400, D'angelico and D'aquisto as the top 4. I in my world that is where it is at and feel free to experiment and try different things. At this late date in my guitar playing I am going for those that are basically shooting for the top 4 mentioned. This includes solid ebony bridges and the like.

[RJVB]

I would be rather leery of any new violin designs, whether bridge or something else. Over the centuries, pretty much every alternate possibility has been explored, and the losers have been abandoned. All the mousetraps have been tried, and there are probably none better than the standard ones.

Yes, I'm aware of that. And at the same time this attitude will also halt all further evolution if we let it. So I'm not so certain if anyone ever thought of trying an ebony or rosewood bridge, for instance, given that maple works just fine and is undoubtedly a lot cheaper (and easier to work). I'm pretty certain no one tried the kind of sound port Ken Parker and Ben Wilborn are using either, for instance. Probably in large part because bowed instrument players are not unlike classical guitar players in how far their instruments are allowed to deviate from what everyone else has (plus violin players typically want an old instrument).
FWIW, a local luthier is finishing what he calls a "creole" violin built with unusual woods. I should check on this project; the last sound sample I heard wasn't exactly flattering - but violins rarely are when unfinished and made to play Sarasate or similar in a crowded workshop and recorded with a simple phone

[sgosnell]

Maple is also relatively light, which most makers consider to be an advantage. I'm not certain why ebony and rosewood still dominate the guitar bridge and fingerboard markets, other than tradition. Fender has influenced many with the use of maple fretboards, but I know of no luthiers or factories using maple for bridges. The color can be a problem, by showing dirt and grime, but there are ways to alleviate that. The hardness of the wood doesn't have a huge effect, IMO, and maple is hard enough, and easy enough to replace, that it should be usable for archtop bridges. I've made a few saddles from maple, because that was what I had on hand at the time, and they worked well enough. Tradition rules, though. But back to the original question, I think the rosewood bridge should sound just as good as ebony, and if the color bothers you, stains are available. Almost all the ebony you see these days is stained, because black ebony is almost unobtainable. I also suspect that much of the bridges sold as ebony are actually something completely different, just stained to look like ebony. Ebony is not the holy grail of luthiery.

[RJVB]

I'm not certain why ebony and rosewood still dominate the guitar bridge and fingerboard markets, other than tradition.

For the fingerboard I know that ebony is used in the violin family because it wears less quickly; even rosewood can develop finger depressions and be gauged by the strings in a few years of playing by a passionate amateur. Those issues are much less problematic on a fretted instrument, I presume. And I have yet to see a maple fretboard on a Fender that's not an e-guitar that will probably be played with (very) light gauge strings at a very low action.
I also understand that the fretboard has an acoustic function for which you want it to be heavy, but you probably know more about that than I.

FWIW, resonator guitar saddles are typically made of maple (idem for the biscuit), though they may be ebony-capped for a clearer sound. Maple can also wear quite quickly under plain wire trebles; violin bridges often have a tiny bone or ebony insert for the E string.

The bridge on my cheap 50s archtop was maple - with a piece of fretwire inserted at the top. The original bridge & saddle on my Loar is definitely good, black and very tight-grained ebony, as is the fingerboard. That, or they did a hell of a through-and-through staining job on it!

[JohanAbrandt]

The main reason for not using maple for fretboards is because it gets dirty and looks bad unless finished with laquer etc. I have a les paul with torrefied maple fretboard and it sounds and looks just fine, even unfinished


Skickat från min iPad med Tapatalk

[Woody Sound]

Violin bridges (and cello, etc) are designed with the cutouts so that there is no direct contact between the string and the top. I never got that, maybe it's just tradition, but I guess it works.

[Stringswinger]

. And I have yet to see a maple fretboard on a Fender that's not an e-guitar that will probably be played with (very) light gauge strings at a very low action.

When Leo Fender introduced the Broadcaster (pretty much the first production solid body guitar), his target market was not blues/rock players who used super light strings. His target market was Western Swing players and his guitars shipped with 12's (the lightest available strings of his day) and with a maple fretboard. It wasn't until the 60's that he started using rosewood boards.

[RJVB]

I have a les paul with torrefied maple fretboard and it sounds and looks just fine, even unfinished

You have a kind of acoustic Les Paul that I'm not aware of?

[JohanAbrandt]

You have a kind of acoustic Les Paul that I'm not aware of?

You’d be surprised how loud it is unplugged, body is a bit chambered, but the cap is a touch thick

[sgosnell]

I think Fender designed his guitars to be built using standard lumber sizes readily available, mostly to cut costs. It's cheaper to cut a neck out of maple, without a separate fretboard. The straight headstock means less waste and less labor, just bandsaw it out, round the back of the neck, bolt it on the body, and done. Cheap materials, assembled with relatively untrained workers, means more profit, and more volume from cheaper prices. But maple necks get very ugly very quickly without a durable finish, especially on the fretboard. Maple is okay as a tonewood, but it shows dirt and grime quickly without something covering the wood. I think it's a decent material for bridge saddles because of its light weight, but it does require more frequent replacement than harder woods. It's cheap and readily available, though, so a replacement saddle won't break the bank. Everything is a tradeoff of some sort, and different people are willing to make different compromises. Most seem to prefer ebony or rosewood. I'm sort of in the middle, but I don't like maple fretboards that much, because of the aesthetics.

[RJVB]

I think Fender designed his guitars to be built using standard lumber sizes readily available, mostly to cut costs. It's cheaper to cut a neck out of maple, without a separate fretboard. The straight headstock means less waste and less labor, just bandsaw it out, round the back of the neck, bolt it on the body, and done. Cheap materials, assembled with relatively untrained workers, means more profit, and more volume from cheaper prices.

And I guess the customer is happy too if that means that refretting becomes something you can (almost) do yourself, for about the same price as a repair shop would ask for the traditional operation (?)

Maple is okay as a tonewood, but it shows dirt and grime quickly without something covering the wood. I think it's a decent material for bridge saddles because of its light weight, but it does require more frequent replacement than harder woods.

Maple bridges get dirty indeed but apart from the traces left by a mute that never really bothered me. I've never had to replace one though, and yet tension on a violin is at least as high as on a guitar IIRC. A maple bridge should last almost a lifetime if you top the saddle with bone, or use inserts for the thinner strings.

(The maple from my backyard is definitely the hardest wood to chop/splice ^^)

[JohanAbrandt]

I think Fender designed his guitars to be built using standard lumber sizes readily available, mostly to cut costs. It's cheaper to cut a neck out of maple, without a separate fretboard. The straight headstock means less waste and less labor, just bandsaw it out, round the back of the neck, bolt it on the body, and done. Cheap materials, assembled with relatively untrained workers, means more profit, and more volume from cheaper prices. But maple necks get very ugly very quickly without a durable finish, especially on the fretboard. Maple is okay as a tonewood, but it shows dirt and grime quickly without something covering the wood. I think it's a decent material for bridge saddles because of its light weight, but it does require more frequent replacement than harder woods. It's cheap and readily available, though, so a replacement saddle won't break the bank. Everything is a tradeoff of some sort, and different people are willing to make different compromises. Most seem to prefer ebony or rosewood. I'm sort of in the middle, but I don't like maple fretboards that much, because of the aesthetics.

The calculation changes with innovation and relative cost of labour, material, machine time. I bet a maple neck with a maple fretboard is cheaper to produce today than a one piece.