Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Saddle compensation
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=47898		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  bcombs510 [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Saddle compensation
Image

Hopefully this pic shows up OK.

I used the Stewmac calculator to locate the saddle. The scale is 24.5 and is 311 to the 12th. The Stewmac calculator says the saddle should be 313.30 above the high E and 316.38 above the low E.

That puts the front of the saddle as pictured which puts the saddle on the low E side too close to the pins.

What would be the best option for this situation? Move it up a mm or 1.5mm and try to deal with it when shaping the nut and saddle? I was just using a round number of +2 mm when positioning the bridge on the high E, which worked out. I was only adding 2.5 to the low E though, and the SM calculator calls for closer to 5.

Any feedback is appreciated!

Brad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  DennisK [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
Add some nut compensation and then you don't need as much on the saddle. The "quick and easy" method is to take your current saddle compensation and divide it in two, putting half at the saddle and half at the nut. That puts a little more at the nut than there really should be, but it's still better than standard compensation.

The real problem here is that the bridge pin holes are too close to the front edge of the bridge. Not much bridge left in front of the saddle slot as it is, so positioning the bridge farther back wouldn't have helped. But there is enough that you can probably squeeze it with the change for nut compensation, since the slant will be less, so the treble side won't move forward as much as the bass.
Author:  tysam [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
I'm a little confused by your figures ( probably just me. been a long day :) If you are 311 to the 12th then your scale for the fret calculator is 622. That computes to 624,2 mm to e and 627.23 to the E. measured from the nut. That is only a difference of 3mm as I can see. ( not accounting for the + or - .5 mm). edit just reread it and it is me.......I see you only had a difference of .5 mm between your low and high e when you set up.....quick rule of thumb..the low e is 1/8 of an inch further back over a 3" saddle.
Author:  bcombs510 [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
Thanks, Dennis. I will do that.

It's interesting what you mention about the pin holes. I made the bridge actually a little taller (2mm) than the plan called for. I'm glad I did that because the problem could be much worse! :D

Thanks again,
Brad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  bcombs510 [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
tysam wrote:
I'm a little confused by your figures ( probably just me. been a long day :) If you are 311 to the 12th then your scale for the fret calculator is 622. That computes to 624,2 mm to e and 627.23 to the E. measured from the nut. That is only a difference of 3mm as I can see. ( not accounting for the + or - .5 mm)


Yes, we are using the same figures, my numbers represent yours minus 311. I think anyway. I'm tired too so who knows. :D
Author:  philosofriend [ Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
It would be nice if those pins were further back, but lots of great-sounding stable guitars have that low E string right next to the saddle. I would try to live with it before plugging the old holes and making new ones. On the other hand, it wouldn't be hard to disguise the plugs with that nice even black ebony...
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
The straight-across pins are one place where Martin got it wrong, or, at least, didn't correct it when they should have. The early bar bridge with a straight across saddle worked OK for gut strings, but when they switched to steel more compensation was needed, as well as a wider bridge to resist peeling up along the back edge. When they switched to the belly bridge they should have made the line of the pin holes parallel to the saddle slot, but they didn't, for whatever reason. It's been the source of a lot of trouble ever since. You're sort of stuck with it now, on this guitar, but I'd switch to the more logical system next time.
Author:  bcombs510 [ Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
Image

Here is what I ended up with. I pulled it in 1mm. Hopefully I can deal with it in the saddle and nut process.

Getting close on #2! :)

Btw: I bought the Stewmac saddle slot jig and used a Dewalt 611 with a 3/32 bit. The jig worked really well. The setup felt stable the entire time and cut nice and smooth.

Brad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  bcombs510 [ Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
Alan, just slant the pins the same as the saddle or is there more to it than that? I've seen some guitars with curved shape for the pins so I guess it doesn't matter as long as you are clear of the saddle and stay within the footprint of the bridge plate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
I used to run the pins in an arc, as a way to be sure they didn't all end up on the same grain line. That can cause the bridge to crack if the pins are in too tight. Then I had a nice long chat with Frank Ford about making guitars more salable, and he told me to avoid that. People feel that it will make the break angle over the saddle vary from one string to the next, and cause it to sound uneven. That might be true if you're talking about the tone from an under saddle pickup, since they can be sensitive to down bearing force, but it's not an issue in the acoustic sound. At any rate, it's usually easy enough to ramp the slots and even out the break angle that way, if toy want. Still, it's the sort of thing that keeps people from taking it off the wall, and it doesn't matter how good the guitar is if it's on the wall.

Anyway, a bit of care in choosing the bridge wood will insure that you don't run all the pins along the same grain line. And, of course, even though it's generally a non-issue, you can tell people that the slanted pin line gives a more uniform break angle. The main benefit IMO is that it avoids the issue of the double winding coming up over the saddle on the low E when the bridge plate wears a bit.
Author:  kencierp [ Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
Quote:
I used to run the pins in an arc, as a way to be sure they didn't all end up on the same grain line. That can cause the bridge to crack if the pins are in too tight.


Every one I made (thankfully not many) with the cool arc pattern developed cracks. I believe Taylor discontinued that style for the same reason.
Author:  Trevor Gore [ Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
kencierp wrote:
Quote:
I used to run the pins in an arc, as a way to be sure they didn't all end up on the same grain line. That can cause the bridge to crack if the pins are in too tight.


Every one I made (thankfully not many) with the cool arc pattern developed cracks. I believe Taylor discontinued that style for the same reason.


None of the lots that I've made with the cool arc pattern have cracked! :D
Author:  kencierp [ Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Saddle compensation
Must be a right and a wrong way to use the curved approach -- for sure mine was wrong here's a post about a pretty fair maker that seems to have it wrong too. (Wayne Henderson) Might note that Bryan Kimsey is considered a repair person of stature.


08/22/15 8:57 AM
Reply Quote More
My Recent Posts
I don't particularly like the curved pins either. I think Collings' approach of angling the pins with the saddle is a better way to achieve the same end (getting the pins off a single grain line). Interestingly, I've worked on 4 Hendersons and I repaired bridge cracks on 3 of them.

Don't like the headstock, either.

They sound good, though!

Bryan Kimsey
Website
YouTube
Facebook
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/