Official Luthiers Forum!

Any reason why the above design would not be an improvement over the bridge below?

Objective - get a consistent break angle for each string, by making the bridge pin holes equidistant from the saddle. Additional benefit (although unlikely to ever be an issue) - holes don't all fall in the same grain lines, making a crack in the bridge pin hole area less likely.

jason,

i was just thinking of the same thing myself. the idea makes a lot of sense to me, particularly with regards to the performance/balance of under saddle pickups. i think there might even be some vintage pyramid bridges that use this design. it might look a little funny on my bridge shape, but i always tend toward form following function anyway.

phil

I make my bridges that way, with the pin holes on a line parallel to the saddle. I'm not a big believer in the need to equalize the break angle, but it does help to get the pin holes off the same grain line, and reduces the chance that your low E string windings will end up on top of the saddle.

I use a 9 degree back angle on the saddle slot as well, which helps both to minimise the tipping force against the front of the slot, and maximise the download on a UST, if people want one. I got that trick from Rick Turner, who knows a few things about USTs.

Yes I think that's pretty standard for most custom guitar bridges.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Yes, the bridge face follows the same radius as the saddle for even reveal all the way across. Also built in the 10 degree back angle Alan spoke of (... yes, this particular bridge is too thick) Thanks for the input guys.

Jason I use a shallow arc for the bridge-pin holes and just cut a ramp for the strings to even up the break angle. Seems to work ok. The back angle on the saddle slot is a great idea . Thanks for the reminder.

Regards

Craig.