I use 18 hole bridges the same as David and Waddy, and for the same resons, but I like to put a bone plate on the rear of mine, which stops the tendency of the string to cut into the wood between the holes.
Colin
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Classical Bridge design http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=27268 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Wed May 05, 2010 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I've done 18 hole bridges a few times. The only extra work is the task of drilling 18 holes cleanly and evenly, but I'm sure that you are up to that task. 18 hole bridges make tying on the strings really easy, and allows the tie block decoration to be totally unobstructed-an aesthetic benefit. I does make removing the strings more challenging as it holds the string really well. If the strings will be removed frequently this may be an issue for some peoples' fingers. I am coming to the opinion that a 12 hole bridge offers the best combination of ease of tying and ease of string removal. You still have to live with the one loop over the tie block. 12 and 18 hole bridges to change the break angle of the string over the saddle, which can be a good thing. They also change the torque of the saddle, which may not be a good thing, tough to say. After typing all this out, I just went back to look at the photos, and i am reading them wrong! He is using this like a 12 hole bridge, and using the extra holes just to tuck in the string ends. I don't know for how long a player will want to bother that extra bit of fastidiousness! Most of us will just get lazy after awhile... But this does give the option of using it as a regular 12 hole or an 18, or a 12 with tucked in strings, and you can still use is as a 6! The individual saddle blocks are a variation of the Gilbert pin saddle. Each string is focused on its own saddle, theoretically focusing all of its energy into the soundboard rather than spreading it along the saddle,and allowing precise intonation for each string. Does this bear out in practice? Hard to say-builder's prerogative. |
|
| Author: | WaddyThomson [ Wed May 05, 2010 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
All of my bridges have had 18 hole bridges, and I love them. However, I've never seen that tie. Usually, on an 18 hole bridge, the strings don't cross the tie block. To me, that's the appeal. That, and the break angle improvement. That bridge looks like an adaptation of Gilbert's pin bridge, but he used metal pins for the saddle. |
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Wed May 05, 2010 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I use 12 on flamencos(less tie block wood) & 18 on classicals. I have used the Gilbert pin style saddles -BUT much more time consuming to set up! As a difference in sound -Not even one of the great guitarists or musicians with great hearing capacity could tell the difference between a regular saddle & the pin style! So why other? Looks neat ! Mike |
|
| Author: | Alexandru Marian [ Wed May 05, 2010 12:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I've made a few 12 hole bridges and 1 with 18. They are cool but now I'm back to 6 unless I am asked for 12/18. 6 is nice too. I have plenty of string break because i drill the holes low, but for a flat flamenco bridge I would put 12 as Mike said. |
|
| Author: | Alain Moisan [ Wed May 05, 2010 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I've read somewhere (don't remember where, maybe here) a luthier mentioning that drilling 12 or 18 holes weakens the tie block and thus makes the bridge more prone to cracking along the holes line. It made sens to me at the time so I stuck with 6 holes. anybody had such problems with more than 6 holes bridges? |
|
| Author: | WaddyThomson [ Wed May 05, 2010 2:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I mean they don't cross the top of the tie block. Attachment: P1030448 (Large).JPG Attachment: P1020325 (Large).JPG
|
|
| Author: | JohnAbercrombie [ Wed May 05, 2010 3:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
EDIT-Waddy was typing faster than I was! Filippo Morelli wrote: WaddyThomson wrote: However, I've never seen that tie. Usually, on an 18 hole bridge, the strings don't cross the tie block. To me, that's the appeal. Waddy, I'm a bit at a loss on the description. You say the strings don't cross the tie block ... what do you mean? Obviously the string crosses the tie block at least once regardless of the approach? Can you post a photo of yours? Cross over the tie block ....- all the 'passes' are 'through' the block and the tie block overlay is completely visible. |
|
| Author: | David LaPlante [ Wed May 05, 2010 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Indeed, being able to leave the top surface of the tie block open for a decorative touch is the best thing about the 18 hole bridge. I haven't attempted to get a string to slip and smack the top on one of these but I don't think it would happen in the same way as on a single hole. The mechanical advantage of the three holes I think would slow the strng down too much. Attachment: Complete#90-004.jpg
|
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Wed May 05, 2010 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Nice work Dave-As usual ! I have pics of a 12 & 18 hole next to eack other on my web page. I'll never go back to a 6 holer! On MY guitars! mc |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Wed May 05, 2010 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I use 18 hole bridges the same as David and Waddy, and for the same resons, but I like to put a bone plate on the rear of mine, which stops the tendency of the string to cut into the wood between the holes. Colin
|
|
| Author: | CWLiu [ Wed May 05, 2010 10:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I've done one 18, a couple of 6, and mostly 12. I prefer 12 ,but 6 can be perfectly fuctional and sexy, too. |
|
| Author: | jfmckenna [ Thu May 06, 2010 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I'm curious to hear any comments on the individual saddle pieces. My first impression is that I don't like it. It looks cool sure but it seems to me that it isolates the individual strings and they won't resonate and drone properly against the other strings but I could be totally wrong, I've never tried it or even played one like it. I'm sure the maker has a very good reason why it's done and I am curious to know. |
|
| Author: | JohnAbercrombie [ Thu May 06, 2010 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
jfmckenna wrote: I'm curious to hear any comments on the individual saddle pieces. My first impression is that I don't like it. It looks cool sure but it seems to me that it isolates the individual strings and they won't resonate and drone properly against the other strings but I could be totally wrong, I've never tried it or even played one like it. I'm sure the maker has a very good reason why it's done and I am curious to know. Mike Collins wrote: I use 12 on flamencos(less tie block wood) & 18 on classicals. I have used the Gilbert pin style saddles -BUT much more time consuming to set up! As a difference in sound -Not even one of the great guitarists or musicians with great hearing capacity could tell the difference between a regular saddle & the pin style! So why other? Looks neat ! Mike I did a Gilbert-style (pin saddles) bridge on a recent classical project guitar. As Mike says, lots more work and no discernible difference in sound. It sounds just like a 'regular' bridge to me- certainly doesn't lose anything. (but I don't have the 'ears' that great builders like John Gilbert were equipped with....) For some info on the Gilbert bridge, see http://www.schrammguitars.com/gilbertbridge.html at David Schramm's excellent website. John |
|
| Author: | WaddyThomson [ Thu May 06, 2010 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Maybe not, but he quit doing it too! |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Thu May 06, 2010 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
douglas ingram wrote: "12 and 18 hole bridges to change the break angle of the string over the saddle, which can be a good thing. They also change the torque of the saddle, which may not be a good thing, tough to say." My opinon, which seems to be backed up by the results of an ongoing experiment I'm running, suggests that break angle, by itself, probably doesn't change the sound of the guitar much, if any. You need to have 'enough', but I'd say that 12-15 degress is certainly enough. Altering the break anlge doesn't change the amount the top deflects under string load, but seems to slightly alter the _way_ the top deflects. That is: the top dips in front of the bridge, and rises in back of it when you tighten the strings, and total rotation seems to stay the same. However, with a lower break angle the 'dip' is less and the 'rise' is greater, by a small amount, at least on my 'test mule'. I need to get some more measurements on that one. The break angle does have an effect on the amount of force tipping the saddle forward, all else equal. Basically, the string tension and the break angle together give a 'resultant' of force that bisects the break angle: the force on the saddle top is not just downward but also forward. The greater the break angle, the greater the force pushing the top of the saddle toward the nut. At some point it gets to be great enough to split out the front of the slot, if you're not careful. One solution to this is to make the saddle slot at an angle back from the vertical. In theory, if the saddle itself bisects the break angle there is no net tipping force on it, and this is how violins get away with such tall skinny bridges. I use a nine degree back angle. It doesn't eliminate the tipping force, but does reduce it quite a lot. It's also self correcting to some degree, in that, when you raise the action height by putting in a taller saddle, it automatically increases the compensation. Thanks to Rick Turner for that one. |
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Thu May 06, 2010 2:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Alan; Saddle height above the top and the tieblock height also create more of a twist(forward)cavity in front of the bridge ? I;ve seen tops destorted by low saddles and very little break angle. A matter of the braces , top stiffness & thickness ? And string tension? Mc |
|
| Author: | JohnAbercrombie [ Thu May 06, 2010 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Alan Carruth wrote: Altering the break angle doesn't change the amount the top deflects under string load, but seems to slightly alter the _way_ the top deflects. That is: the top dips in front of the bridge, and rises in back of it when you tighten the strings, and total rotation seems to stay the same. However, with a lower break angle the 'dip' is less and the 'rise' is greater, by a small amount, at least on my 'test mule'. I need to get some more measurements on that one. With the wound strings, at some point in the string tightening, it seems to me that the string stops sliding and 'grips' the saddle. So the forces on either side of the saddle are not necessarily equal ?? Thus the tipping idea? And the break angle would affect when the string starts to 'grip' the saddle rather than slide over it.... Some of the theoretical discussions which compare the saddle to the tower in a suspension bridge seem to fail at this point. A true roller saddle would behave differently than a standard bone saddle in this respect. Luckily, the bridge wood probably deforms enough to spread out the loads from the saddle. Thinking about the 'points of contact' between the saddle and bridge (slot) when the string is tuned up to pitch shows why the fit of the saddle in the slot can affect the tone/volume, etc. - for better or worse. Cheers John |
|
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Fri May 07, 2010 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Alan, That's what I would have said had I the words to say it. Its a MUCH fuller description. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Fri May 07, 2010 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Mike Collins asked: "Saddle height above the top and the tieblock height also create more of a twist(forward)cavity in front of the bridge ?" I don't know about tieblock height: all I changed in my experiment was the saddle height and break angle. I went in with the notion that what happens behind the top of the saddle didn't matter in dertermining the tone, but only effected the static load on the saddle and slot. I found that I was not _quite_ right, although, if there is an effect on tone simply from changing the break angle, I don't have enough data to see it. The top loading does change a little with changes in the break angle, though, even when the string height off the top remains the same, so it could effect the tone. In terms of string height and top distortion, think of it this way: if the strings could somehow run through the middle of a hollow top (think of a double top with the Nomex removed where the strings are), then there would be no dishing in front of, or humping up behind, the bridge. It's the string height off the top that causes those problems. The higher the strings are off the top, the more the top distorts; I've measured that one so I know. Obviously, if the top is too weak, it will distort more, even with light strings and a low saddle. As usual, we're after a balance here. |
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Fri May 07, 2010 2:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
Thanks Alan; As usual you help us all with your data & emphirical knowledge also ! Hey -going to Montreal this year? I'm doing the Woodstock Invitational again! I sold guitars there last year! Can't wait to go again. If your interested in going there go to www.woodstockinvitational.com Contact Baker or Sharon for info ! take care Mike |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Sat May 08, 2010 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical Bridge design |
I'm headed up to Montreal, in part to deliver an arch classical for their collection. I'll keep the Woodstock show in mind, though: at least I could bring my BRW guitar! Thanks. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|