Ebony VS Rosewood VS Bone VS TOM Archtop Bridge Selection

[kenbennett]

Graphtech is the answer. Well, they sound better than metal.

Graphtech Replacement Saddles for Tune-o-matic Bridge

[kris]

I think the best way is to buy good sounding guitar for good money.
We jazz guitarists spend too much time looking for exelent sound.
I have two bridges...one ebone a one ABR-1 with rosewood base.
I like two of them but I think ebony is more acurate for my jazz guitar.
Softer sound.
Good wood this is a key.

[pingu]

The harder the material the harder the sound
Bone is hard ..........

[pingu]

I think that the higher guage strings you use the more intune your instrument ends up being ....... and staying in tune ....
don't know why

I used to have ALL sorts of problems tuning guitars and playing in tune
I could never get all my shapes properly in tune

till I went from 10s to 13s ALL these problems went away
such a bloody relief

[jazzbow]

I think that the higher guage strings you use the more intune your instrument ends up being ....... and staying in tune ....
don't know why

I used to have ALL sorts of problems tuning guitars and playing in tune
I could never get all my shapes properly in tune

till I went from 10s to 13s ALL these problems went away
such a bloody relief

+1 on that. The higher tension makes for better neck relief. I personally don't go lighter than 11's, I wince when customers ask for 9's....

As for intonating wooden/bone saddles I intonate pre-shaped, wound G bridges on the 19th fret harmonic versus the 19th fretted note with the 2nd and 5th strings and then the rest fall into place. As for the best sounding material I would plumb for bone (bone for tone). Actually, why not go for ebony as well and then swap 'til you get the sound you want

[SamBooka]

remember that neck relief is adjustable. I have had to tighten the truss rod on many guitars with .009s on them.

Heavier strings = more mass. That means you have to pick harder (l didnt start using heavy picks until I went to 14s). That also means there is more energy driving the top of the guitar.

That heavier strings sound better I have no doubt. That they play in tune better I would have to see some proof.

[NiAg]

One of the reasons strings do not play in tune is that when they are stretched to reach a fret, and further stretched when you push past the fret and down to the fingerboard, the pitch changes. This can be partially compensated at the bridge (and further compensated at the nut, but that is a long story).

Big deal, no news there.

So why do light strings seem harder to play in tune?

Two compounding reasons.

First, light strings are easier to accidentally stretch sideways while playing, and to stretch inconsistently down past the fret crowns to the fingerboard. Sometimes the player "over-stretches" the string a little, and sometimes a lot. With light strings, the inconsistency of these stretches is greater than with more resolute heavy strings.

AND,

Lighter, LOWER TENSION, strings change pitch MORE for a given absolute deflection vs. a straight path vs. heavier, higher tension, strings.

No, really.

So lighter strings are both easier to inconsistently knock off course while playing, and the effect of this on the note you hear is greater.

[NiAg]

[Jazzbow] >>> I intonate pre-shaped, wound G bridges on the 19th fret harmonic versus the 19th fretted note with the 2nd and 5th strings and then the rest fall into place.

A happy customer is far more important than anything else, so I'm just kicking around theory and practice for the fun of it here. To each his own in guitardom.

In my opinion (with a little help from Pythagoras and Newton I guess), this 19th harmonic vs. 19th fret sort of accidentally works.

EDIT: I just sort of went through and cleaned it up a little.

The 19th fret harmonic is not tempered. It is a pure interval vs. the open note, and actually off (by a measly 2 cents) vs. the tempered note that we all more or less agree to play in our 12 semi-tone scales.

The 19th fret harmonic is sharp by 2 cents. Not a big deal for the most part, but to some it matters.

But there is more (if you can stand the tedium of this post),...

The 19th fret, fretted note gets pretty messy. By the time you get that far up the FB, particularly on thicker strings, you are getting a considerable amount of inharmonicity. This is caused by the imperfect flexibility of the string. The string is stiff, so it doesn't wiggle perfectly in an arc - especially at the ends.

As you get to a shorter and shorter total vibrating length (up the FB), this messy stiff area near the ends of the vibrating string becomes a significant % of the total vibrating string length. It makes a mess of the harmonics. EDIT: I mean the harmonics you hear on the string when you play a fretted note at the 19th fret.

(Note: Inharmonicity is the fundamental reason for "stretch tuning" in a piano. You can not stretch tune a guitar.)

Fortunately, the untempered harmonic error and the inharmonicity error are usually heard as being off in the same direction. So setting a bridge based on the 19th vs. 19th sort of works.

In my opinion, forced harmonics on open strings have no value whatsoever in setting intonation unless you do not use a tuner (in which case the 12th fret harmonic vs. 12 fret note is a classic and roughly useable tool).

At least the 12th fret harmonic, and 12th fret note are not an untempered intervals vs. the open string. Also, the 12th fret harmonic is less affected by inharmonicity than any other harmonic.

>>>2nd and 5th strings and then the rest fall into place.

In my opinion, almost all combinations of archtop bridges and string sets do better by optimising for the A and B strings vs. the more traditional emphasis on the two E strings.

[SamBooka]

First, light strings are easier to accidentally stretch sideways while playing, and to stretch inconsistently down past the fret crowns to the fingerboard. Sometimes the player "over-stretches" the string a little, and sometimes a lot. With light strings, the inconsistency of these stretches is greater than with more resolute heavy strings.

AND,

Lighter, LOWER TENSION, strings change pitch MORE for a given absolute deflection vs. a straight path vs. heavier, higher tension, strings.

1) For number one I will agree with you. I see guys playing out of tune applying inconsitant pressure on the string (think scalloped fingerboard). This is usally a beginner. Taken to the extreme example with the scalloped fingerboards you dont see many guys playing full bar chords on them

The second is true BUT this is why you compensate with your intonation. Now if you are using a stewmac bridge they probably are set up to get you in the ball park with a set of 12s with a wound 3rd.

Now if you think of the force required to fret a string at the nut vs at the 12th fret (remember trying to play that first Fmaj bar chord?) that also comes into play. I assumed that is where the whole Buzz Feiten system comes in.

[pingu]

Great info guys , many thanks that explanes it beautifully
and feels right to me too

I still find a full barre first fret Fmaj a bit of a handfull !
whats the guitar in your icon Sam ?
(might as well keep asking)

[NiAg]

In my opinion/experience almost all nuts are too high. Some by quite a bit.

This is understandable from a manufacturing point of view. A nut that is too low will buzz in the open position, while a nut that is too high can be easily adjusted to the string choice of a player.

In my opinion, it is a significant disservice to describe nut action as clearance over the first fret. This misses the fundamentals of how the nut can be best set up and maintains a raft of old spouse's tales.

The often-linked frets.com description of nut action is quite good, so long as you read the associated comments about string stiffness and imperfect flexibility over the front of the nut.

There are luthiers who habitually cut nuts too high (it avoids buzz complaints), and a very small number who habitually cut them too low (by using brand new strings and not settling them in over the front of the nut).

Nuts that are too high have two significant downsides. Fretting in low positions is difficult, AND the extra string stretch required to get down to the frets adds to the intonation difficulties of a guitar.

Intonation compensation at the nut is a long story, and the marketing of one of the two commercial systems blows major smoke up the collective pooper of the playing public - which does not help.

Very quickly (well, relatively quickly anyway):

There are 5 types of stretch that the guitar string can experience when being played. Each type of stretch can raise the practical pitch of the note vs. a calculated pitch based on fret location.

On most guitars, only one type (but often the most significant type) of stretch is "compensated" at the bridge.

Many intonation troubles can not be addressed at the bridge.

The stretches are not widely described in the industry, so there are no standard terms. But the Earvana nut guy does address two types of stretches fairly clearly, so I'll use his terms for those two:

1. Travel stretch.

This is the distance that the string travels from the open position, down to the fret crown when you play. This distance (if the nut is cut correctly) increases as you fret farther up the neck. This stretch therefore gets more dramatic as you play farther up the neck.

Bridge compensation, setting the saddle farther back than the calculated position, adds a relatively small distance to the overall string length on open strings. But as you play up the neck, this setback becomes a proportionally larger part of the total vibrating string length. This added length, and its PROPORTIONAL CHANGE, compensates for the pitch change caused by "travel stretch". Ta-da, as they say.

2. Fretting stretch

As we fret a note, we typically press the string past the height of the fret crown. This adds specific "fretting stretch" to the travel stretch. This fretting stretch varies by player, fret height, string gauge, and mood. Sometimes you dig in hard and sometimes you float quickly over the frets.

BUT IN GENERAL: There is more fretting stretch in low positions than in high positions. This is due to a combination of playing style and the span between frets. It is simply easier for most players fingers to extend fretting stretch when there is more distance between frets.

The big thing: You can not compensate for fretting stretch at the bridge. No.

Practical fretting stretch typically decreases as you play up the FB, while bridge compensation effectively increases.

The other big thing: Fretting stretch can be very effectively compensated at the nut. Nut compensation is most effective in low positions and becomes less effective as you play up the FB. Handy, huh?

Describing nut compensation is long and tricky. The industry mostly ignores it, so we are collectively less familiar with the idea. Also, there are some marketing descriptions that are, in my opinion, unhelpful in getting everyone on board with what this is and how it works.

I'll leave this for now, but am happy to discuss the details of this further if anyone wants to.

I'll now post this, then come back and add more as edits,...

*****************************
And we're back,...

3. NUT stretch

In principle, the height of a string at the nut should be level with the height of the fret crowns. When this height is too low, you can get buzzing in the open string. When this height is too high, it is harder to play in low positions, AND you add "nut stretch" to the travel stretch as you play.

Nut stretch could be compensated at the nut. It can not be compensated at the bridge. I think we all know why.

The solution to nut stretch is to not have it in the first place. The way to not have nut stretch is to get the nut slots down at fret crown height. Unfortunately, compensated nuts are vaguely (and sometimes not so vaguely) associated with compensating for a nut being too high. This helps with the intonation problem, but hurts playability.

Editorial break: Most players who are new to a good setup are amazed what is does for playability. They marvel over the various things the luthier did. In my opinion and experience, 1 through 99 of the 100 most effective things done in a good setup are all getting the nut slots down where they should be. I suspect that if I did nothing but this, a large % of players would have been very happy with the dramatic improvement in their guitar.

I have two fears. One is that nut compensation will be heavily marketed in a way that makes high nuts even more common and specifically justified.

My other fear is that in the year 2025 we will all have to listen to that awful "Year 2525" song all the time. That will be 500 years too early.


4. Lateral stretch

This is the player bending the string sideways - unintentionally.

The solution is practice, and for many - heavier strings.


5. Relief stretch

Most players like a bit of neck relief. This is a concave (forward) bow in the neck.

This bow changes the proportional travel stretch into a non-linear function. But only a little.

In my opinion/experience, most advanced players find the following:

If you get the nut down, you can slightly raise the bridge and reduce the neck relief. The net effect is improved playability overall, particularly in the low and mid positions. This ends up reducing relief stretch to the point that it is a theoretical, but not practical issue.

I am skipping any overall discussion of neck relief since it is not directly to the point of this thread.

Ooookee. Time for Sunday espresso. I hope this was not too pedantic or confusing. Sorry for any typos.

[jazzbow]

[Jazzbow] >>> I intonate pre-shaped, wound G bridges on the 19th fret harmonic versus the 19th fretted note with the 2nd and 5th strings and then the rest fall into place.

A happy customer is far more important than anything else, so I'm just kicking around theory and practice for the fun of it here. To each his own in guitardom.

In my opinion (with a little help from Pythagoras and Newton I guess), this 19th harmonic vs. 19th fret sort of accidentally works.

EDIT: I just sort of went through and cleaned it up a little.

The 19th fret harmonic is not tempered. It is a pure interval vs. the open note, and actually off (by a measly 2 cents) vs. the tempered note that we all more or less agree to play in our 12 semi-tone scales.

The 19th fret harmonic is sharp by 2 cents. Not a big deal for the most part, but to some it matters.

But there is more (if you can stand the tedium of this post),...

The 19th fret, fretted note gets pretty messy. By the time you get that far up the FB, particularly on thicker strings, you are getting a considerable amount of inharmonicity. This is caused by the imperfect flexibility of the string. The string is stiff, so it doesn't wiggle perfectly in an arc - especially at the ends.

As you get to a shorter and shorter total vibrating length (up the FB), this messy stiff area near the ends of the vibrating string becomes a significant % of the total vibrating string length. It makes a mess of the harmonics. EDIT: I mean the harmonics you hear on the string when you play a fretted note at the 19th fret.

(Note: Inharmonicity is the fundamental reason for "stretch tuning" in a piano. You can not stretch tune a guitar.)

Fortunately, the untempered harmonic error and the inharmonicity error are usually heard as being off in the same direction. So setting a bridge based on the 19th vs. 19th sort of works.

In my opinion, forced harmonics on open strings have no value whatsoever in setting intonation unless you do not use a tuner (in which case the 12th fret harmonic vs. 12 fret note is a classic and roughly useable tool).

At least the 12th fret harmonic, and 12th fret note are not an untempered intervals vs. the open string. Also, the 12th fret harmonic is less affected by inharmonicity than any other harmonic.

>>>2nd and 5th strings and then the rest fall into place.

In my opinion, almost all combinations of archtop bridges and string sets do better by optimising for the A and B strings vs. the more traditional emphasis on the two E strings.

So I'm right?

[NiAg]

>>>So I'm right?

Hee-hee. In my opinion, yes. It works. A satisfied player is #1 by a long shot.

[pingu]

Hey mr Silver , you know your stuff man , can I call you Nick ?

Seriously ..... that was a fantastic reply , there's so much to it
I had no idea
its fabulous to actually meet someone who knows their sh1t

[NiAg]

Hi Ping,

Hey, there is no actual silver in fretwire, so my forum name is a dopey mistake.

I think that the benefit of a forum is to treat all opinions equally (which they, in fact, are). I may have one take on things, but a complete beginner can have a fresh view that I hope to use to improve my own outlook.

So thanks for the feedback, but let's also share that with anyone who posts a view on this, or any, subject.

So called, 'expertise' or experience is all well and good, but not if it stifles new input and opinion.

Sorry for the speech. Thanks again Pingu.

[jazzbow]

Hi Ping,

Hey, there is no actual silver in fretwire, so my forum name is a dopey mistake.

I think that the benefit of a forum is to treat all opinions equally (which they, in fact, are). I may have one take on things, but a complete beginner can have a fresh view that I hope to use to improve my own outlook.

So thanks for the feedback, but let's also share that with anyone who posts a view on this, or any, subject.

So called, 'expertise' or experience is all well and good, but not if it stifles new input and opinion.

Sorry for the speech. Thanks again Pingu.

I like this post, NiAg you are an upstanding guy! There seems to be an element of over opinion sometimes but thats just the way it goes I 'spose...

Oh, er so I was right....

[Irez87]

David Schneider built me this:



I will have to take a better shot of the bridge.

The top piece was built to my custom specs. A piece of bone that is sandwiched between two pieces of ebony and sits on a wide bridge plate.

What else makes it unique?

I have to take another picture, but you can kinda see it in the shot. The bone goes along the entire length of the top of the bridge piece. The tone screw holes were drilled though the bone, so the tone travels right from the bone to the metal, unlike other bone/wood archtop bridge pieces. I love the sound. I have to get a better mic to pick up all the subtleties this bridge gives me

[simonbrads]

Bought some string saver saddles from WD music UK... Here are my thoughts:
1st thing you notice is the saddles are slimmer than the metal one's being replaced. Removing the old saddles and fitting these is straightforward enough. Im putting these on an archtop to try and eliminate some of the metallic tone you get from a TOM compared to a wooden bridge. Re-fitted the bridge and adjusted the intonation and I noticed some of the saddles were leaning forward, the adjusting screw having raised at the back.( I have D'addario 13s on this guitar with a plain g string, hence wanting to use a TOM to get good intonation.) I noticed the screw retention wire was struggling under the tension. I removed the bridge, removed the wire and made a new wire out of a piece of of plain guitar string. As the wire was a gauge or two heavier than the previous I had to ream out the existing holes in the bridge to accommodate. Struggled to refit the wire back on the bridge, small nosed pliers needed. Put the bridge back in, re adjusted the intonation again and now all good. I'm sure if your fitting these to a solid body with light strings you won't have any of these issues.
So did it provide the tone I was after? ... Yes they did. That metallic sound is gone and I think there is a bit more mids and smoother top end as a result. Does it sound as good or better than the rosewood bridge I was replacing?? Tricky to assess that one... It sounds good for sure but definitely different to the wood. The rosewood sounded louder acoustically but with less sustain and attack. As I use the plain g string on a jazz box this gives me much happier intonation, more sustain and a nice smooth tone when amplified. Having got used to it now and adjusted the amplifier to suit, tone wise there's not much in it really. As for saving strings, this was never an issue.

[Cunamara]

Wow, zombie thread resurrection.

I use the String Saver saddles on my Telecaster and Stratocaster. I think they improve the tone for jazz quite a bit; the high end spike around 2000 Hz is reduced which gives the instrument a warmer and smoother sound. Other people prefer metal saddles that retain that slightly hard, brighter bite. What I find is that with the String Saver saddles I can open the tone control a bit more which improves clarity and, for some reason, sustain.

I sometimes use an odd string set on my arch top which requires fairly extreme compensation (it is a custom mix of gauges intended to balance a CC style pick up). I used to a TOM bridge to establish the intonation and then had an ebony bridge top custom-made by forum member Matt Cushman. I had thought about trying a String Saver bridge top on that guitar but never got around to it.

Regarding the tonal qualities of different woods used to make a bridge top: as an experiment, I had Matt make me two otherwise identical bridge tops from ebony and rosewood. My belief was that since rosewood is a bit softer, it would sound warmer. When I got to try them on my guitar, I was very surprised to find that the ebony was much warmer with a stronger fundamental and less overtones. The rosewood had a lot of overtones; it was even jangly sounding like a Rickenbacker.

Conversing with Matt about this, he noted that the mass of the bridge top seemed to have more of an effect on tone than the material, from his experience. He had weighed the bridge tops and wrote their weight on the underside; the ebony bridge top was 11g and the rosewood bridge top was 8g. So it is possible that some of the tonal difference we hear with different woods has to with density/specific gravity rather than some mojo about the wood. A TOM bridgetop will weigh quite a bit more than either rosewood or ebony, however, so I don't know how that fits into that thinking. Metal may transmit vibrations differently than wood does as metal is a crystalline structure compared to wood's composite structure. My understanding of material science is poor enough that I probably shouldn't be hazarding a guess at all.