Official Luthiers Forum!

I see guys like Mike Greenfield building them that way but I've never had the desire to do so myself. The physics seems as though they would change as the leverage from underneath the soundboard would be non-existent. For those of you that build like this or have built that way how do you compensate for it if at all. Is the leverage even a factor after the string break or is the stiffness of the top/bracing and the glue that holds the bridge down ample on it's own?

In short- should a pin-less bridge require over bracing? If so then it seems that the aesthetics would not be worth the loss in responsiveness. Plenty of builders do it though so I'd like to understand why.

Hey Joey, I have been thinking about the same thing lately and was considering posting the same question but you beat me to it. I’m curious what others have to say. I’m particularly interested to know whether a pinless bridge has any significant impact on tone and responsiveness versus a traditional pinned bridge due to the factors you mentioned.

Thanks Charlie, I'm glad I'm not the only one that is wondering about this. I can't imagine a scenario where a pin-less bridge would positively affect the sound of a guitar over a traditional bridge but I'm pretty much a NOOB having only completed 4 guitars, one of which I would never admit to building! Hopefully someone that knows a bit more about it will chime in.

The torque on the soundboard remains unchanged. The stress on the glue joint between the bridge and the top does not. So you need more bridge footprint area with a pinless bridge. Especially on cedar and redwood.

Two nice things about pinless bridges are that you can use a lightweight softwood bridge plate purely for stiffening purposes, and you can use bracing patterns that run underneath the bridge without worrying about positioning braces between holes, or causing future repairmen heartache due to the fact that the bridge plate can't be removed and replaced if the holes ever become worn or crack the plate or whatever.

"I can't imagine a scenario where a pin-less bridge would positively affect the sound of a guitar over a traditional bridge"

I have a Breedlove Northwest Classic which I've had for quite a few years and it's tone doesn't suffer at all for having a pin-less bridge, IMO, compared with any of the other steel string guitars I've owned from the usual suspects. The guitar responds well to a light touch and has plenty of volume and a full tone. I don't know what adjustments Breedlove might have made to the bracing design to go with that type of bridge, but a pin-less bridge can certainly work just fine.

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

Purely from a tone point of view I find it interesting that classical guitars have always had pinless bridges.
Dave

True but they also have a lot less PSI per square inch with nylon strings.

Why is that?

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

Here's my pin-less bridge similar to Lowden but different string pass through concept/approach. Lowden's " are not" lightly braced. An interesting feature is that the largish bridge plate is positioned with the grain diagonal to the sound board grain. I have to say that Lowden "O" size are among my very favorite sounding guitars.

http://acousticguitarconstructionforum. ... =20&t=1709

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Do you pinless folks find setup to be a hassle, especially saddle height and intonation adjustments?

I pop the strings out of the bridge pin holes multiple times when setting up a new guitar or making a new saddle.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

Terence, I just add some additional string wraps on the tuner post so I get plenty of slack in the strings when de-tuning. I can then slip the saddle out to make my adjustments.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

DennisK wrote:
"The torque on the soundboard remains unchanged. The stress on the glue joint between the bridge and the top does not."

I agree about the torque, but I'm not at all sure the load on the glue line changes all that much, at least, so long as the bridge remains glued down. Once it starts to pull up the top is distorted by the ball ends pulling on the plate, but that doesn't prove that the load on the glue line was less.

As for tone; as far as the string vibrations and the signal forces on the top are concerned it's all a black box behind the saddle. If there's enough break angle to keep the strings from hopping off the saddle the string neither knows or cares how you got it.

I've used the pinless system that Jeff Elliot came up with (so far as I know). It works well and makes it very easy to change strings. If you've got the 'American Lutherie' article on the Sullivan-Eliot harp guitar there are some pics of it there. I have some pictures I took of the last instrument I used it on, and can try to get them in shape to post. Basically, the ball end of the string goes into a pocket on the top of the bridge. The pocket just fits around the ball end, and there's a little pin in the center of it that goes in the hole in the middle of the ball. This is not to take the pull of the string, but keeps it from rotating and popping out. For a really good job you can get brass tubing at a hobby shop or some hardware stores that will just fit over the ball. You have to slot the tube and open up the sides to make ramps for the strings, but the metal keeps the holes from wearing. If you get the angles and such right the strings will pull themselves down into the pockets under tension, but are easy to lift out when they're slacked off.

Al
I really like Jeff's bridge design. He has lots of pictures of it on his web page elliottguitars.com. Very elegant and functional. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Dave

http://www.doolinguitars.com/articles/bridgejigs/

I've had this in my bookmarks for quite some time.

_________________
Wake up and smell the rosewood!

Interesting, That is pretty much exactly how I made the bridge on the first guitar I build in 1967. Except that instead of the brass pins, I used small hobby store bolts that the ball ends would fit over. And I made little bone caps for the nuts and screwed them on so the ball ends would be hidden. At the time I had not handled a guitar made with bridge pins (just ones with tailpieces), so I had to come up with something.

Grant

Joey -- do you believe the Lowden "O" in the video clip above lacks responsiveness?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Alan -- what do you see as the advantage/improvement acoustic or otherwise, yielded with Jeff's bridge design over a properly glued conventional pin-less bridge?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I don't believe there's any acoustic or structural advantage one way or the other. I used Jeff's layout on the last two harp guitars I made to get around problems with top brace layouts: you don't have to worry that you're going to drill into a brace with a pinless bridge. I'm working on an ABG now that will probably have a pinless bridge too, simply to avoid having to get pins for those big ball ends.

No, but I also don't know what compensations were made if any. That's what I'm trying to understand. Is compensation needed and if so what sorts. If not, so be it. Lots of good comments so far for both takes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

OK I understand your question. I'll address that by saying both the major pin-less bridge users Ovation and Lowden indeed have very different, some would say unconventional brace patterns. At one time Taylor had pin-less bridges not sure of their strategy or Takamine's who also make pin-less bridged guitars. You might email Mike Dooling and ask about your concern. Maybe Alan will comment.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

IMO, Ovations start out with several strikes against them, starting with 'way too much finish on the top in the examples I've worked on, and that 'dead' back. If there were a problem with the bridge that would be the least of it, so you can't use that as an example of why pinless bridges don't work. That's like saying double-X bracing doesn't work because Gibson messed it up when they used it.

Alan -- I am not much of a supporter for Ovation either (however, Glen Campbell sure played the heck out if his) Anyway, Ovation's were brought up since they use a very different brace pattern and that is the question at hand. I think Joey's question is will a pin-less bridge work with a standard/conventional brace pattern -- like Martin "X" or are mods required to accommodate the pin-less bridge.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I do lots of set-ups on pinless bridges and here is a second to what Jim said about slacking the strings and pulling the saddle out sideways.

Before I restring them though I am sure to pull the saddle and make sure that no unnatural acts are required to get it out. This is also a good time to use my files and reshape the saddle break points eliminating any "pinches" or deep grooves. I'm also keen to perhaps.... sand the saddle sides so that it's snug in the slot with no tipping and especially able to be moved up and down easily if there is a UST but most important so that I can get it out with the freaking stings in the way.

Pinless bridges are a bit more to think of when setting them up but nothing that can't be anticipated and countered.

As for Ov*tions, as Lance says no cussin on the forum....

You know at one time Ov*tion accounted for 1/3 of guitars sales in the US..... Perhaps that was before common core....

The Ov*tion story is pretty interesting too in how they came to be. A defense contractor that made helicopters and their core competency was damping......... vibration...... went into a completely unrelated industry where the core competency required was very much encouraging....... vibration..... A match made in hell from the get go. They were good for the ep*xy industry and that's apparently what Ov*tion thought that the sound hole was for too, dump ep*xy here.....

To not clutter this one, here is a new thread on the interface stresses for pinned and pinless:
viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=46993

_________________
David Malicky

I've used pinless bridges on my guitars for twenty years, and it is more time consuming. Furthermore, if you're not careful, particularly with something like a Fishman Matrix, you can damage a pickup element if you don't loosen the strings enough to lift the saddle up, and then out sideways. As for saddle fit, I am not a believer in a "snug" saddle slot. Too many guitars have come across my bench (including my own instruments) where I had to use a pair of end nippers to get the saddle out because it had been fit too snugly. Pickups like a loose saddle -- not so loose as to tip forward, but rather loose enough that if you flip the guitar over, the saddle will start to slip out if not fall out entirely.